Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

The CLEAR at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (RAJKOT, SITUATION).

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any further announcement to make on the situation in Rajkot; and whether he has been in communication with the Ruler of that State regarding the honouring of his pledge to the people?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): On 2nd March, Mr. Gandhi sent an ultimatum to the Ruler of Rajkot State suggesting that he should set up a committee to recommend a scheme of constitutional advance in the State. The committee was to consist of four members chosen by the Ruler and five members, including the chairman, named by Mr. Gandhi. Three officers of the State to be approved by Mr. Gandhi might be appointed as advisers to the committee without the right to vote. The committee was to start work on 7th March and report by 22nd March. Its recommendations were to be put into force within seven days, subject to their examination by Mr. Gandhi or Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel. Mr. Gandhi undertook to allow nothing to remain in these recommendations which would affect the prestige of the Ruler, his State or his subjects. Mr. Gandhi also stated that all political prisoners must be released and all fines for political offences remitted. Failing acceptance of these suggestions,

Mr. Gandhi threatened to fast. The Ruler rejected this ultimatum, and Mr. Gandhi began to fast on 3rd March. The Ruler denies that he has broken any of his undertakings in connection with the appointment of a Reforms Committee, and His Excellency the Crown Representative does not consider that a case to the contrary has been made out. I am not aware that any specific communication on that point has been made to the Ruler, but the Resident is, of course, in constant contact with him.

Mr. Wilson: Has the Under-Secretary's attention been called to the plea put forward by two Indian papers, both under British control, that the time has arrived when there should be some inquiry as to what is happening in this State?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, Sir; I have seen those newspaper articles.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the Under-Secretary, in that case, propose that any inquiry should be conducted, in view of the very serious situation that would arise if anything should happen to Mr. Gandhi?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Secretary of State and the Crown Representative are in constant consultation on this matter, and are acting in accordance with the normal tradition of the Crown Representative.

Miss Wilkinson: Will not the normal tradition of the Crown Representative in this case be such a tragedy that it might be better to find some new precedents for dealing with the situation?

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Does not this matter really rest with the Ruler of the State?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The lines on which the Crown Representative acts in connection with the Ruler of a State have been stated on many occasions in this House, and I think the normal custom is being followed in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH FOREIGN MINISTER (VISIT).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the forthcoming visit to this country of Colonel Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Polish Foreign Minister will shortly pay a visit to this country, most probably in the first week in April. His Majesty's Government welcome the opportunity which this visit will afford of discussing with Colonel Beck matters of common interest to our two countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR DISARMAMENT.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister what further progress has been made between the Locarno Powers for an air pact, providing for the limitation of European air armaments and mutual assistance against an aggressor?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I have nothing to report as to any proposals for a Western Air Pact.

Mr. Day: Have any arrangements been made for further discussion of this subject?

Mr. Butler: As far as we are concerned, the whole question of the limitation of aerial warfare is being examined by the Departments concerned, as the Prime Minister informed the House, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), on 13th February.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is this survey likely to be completed in the near future?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give any definite date for its completion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that, before entering into negotiations as to a loan from Great Britain to General Franco, he will lay down as a condition the recognition by the new Spanish Government of the legitimate aspirations of the national minorities in Spain, the Basques, the Galicians, and the Catalans?

The Prime Minister: No such negotiations are at present in prospect; the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Adams: Would not the Prime Minister agree that a Spain in which the

minorities are contented would be the best security for any loan we may make?

Captain McEwen: May I ask what business this is of ours?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we shall not be faced with a promise to make loans without any assurances as to the treatment of minorities or prisoners in Spain?

The Prime Minister: I do not think the time has arrived to give any such assurances.

Mr. Adams: Is it not our business to get good security for our loans?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a further statement concerning the conditions in the Spanish refugee camps in Southern France?

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider making proposals for joint action with France to organise relief and migration of Spanish refugees who entered France in consequence of the defeat of the Republican Government forces in Northern Spain

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are at present awaiting the views of the French Government on various aspects of this question, and I regret that I have at present nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 27th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher).

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that credible eye-witnesses reported last week that the average mortality per day was approximately 200 or 300, and that the conditions are really beyond description? They have now been endured for a month, and it is believed that they have been allowed to continue in order to bring pressure to bear on these men to return to Spain. Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations in this regard?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to accept the latter part of the hon. Member's statement, but I know that the conditions have been very serious, and we have been in communication with the French Government on the matter. The House will realise that, if we had had a reply from the French Government on


these points, I could give more information, but as this is on French territory I can say no more.

Mr. Attlee: Are the British Government contributing anything to the maintenance of the refugees, either in the way of money or by sending doctors to assist in this extremely difficult situation?

Mr. Butler: The British Government's contribution is sent through the International Commission. The International Commission operates to help the refugees on the French side of the frontier, as it did before on the other side, and in that way we are helping. With regard to the more detailed points, these are matters on which we have had exchanges with the French Government.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have the Government any direct information from eye-witnesses on the spot about the conditions in these refugee camps; or, if not, on what information are the Government relying?

Mr. Butler: We have had a certain amount of information on the conditions, in these camps, and that is why I acknowledge that the conditions have not been satisfactory.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Could the right hon. Gentleman consider sending tents or other shelter, in view of the fact that many of these people are in the open in very severe weather conditions?

Mr. Butler: Certainly no such suggestion would be ruled out.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have the Government made an offer to the French Government to send their own representative to the spot to discuss these matters with the French authorities at the camps?

Mr. Butler: As our communications with the French Government are not yet concluded, I am afraid I can give no further information on details, but the hon. and gallant Member may be reassured that every aspect of the question is being considered with the French Government.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether relations are to be maintained between His Majesty's Government and the Spanish Republican Government through the medium of diplomatic representatives; what status is to be accorded

to the representatives of each Government in London and Madrid, respectively; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order. Before this question is answered, could I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? In view of the ambiguity in the minds of many hon. Members in regard to the Spanish situation, will you guide us as to how questions should be phrased in future, and as to whether General Franco's troops should now be referred to as the Government forces and all the others as insurgents?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter on which the Chair should give a decision; it is a matter of individual taste and opinion. Hon. and right hon. Members will phrase their questions or their speeches according to their own choice, and it will depend on their exercise of that choice whether the questions are called by the Chair or not and whether speeches are interrupted by the Chair or not.

Mr. Thurtle: Is it not a peculiarly un-British thing to kick a brave people when they are down?

The Prime Minister: Recognition of the Republican Government was withdrawn simultaneously with the announcement by His Majesty's Government of their recognition of General Franco's Administration as the Government of Spain. There can, therefore, be no diplomatic representation between His Majesty's Government and the Republican Administration. In the territory which is not at present under General Franco's control His Majesty's consular officers will take such action as may be appropriate for the protection of British interests and for humanitarian purposes.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the fact that, prior to the recognition of the Spanish insurgent authorities, the British Government maintained an agent at Burgos, do not His Majesty's Government propose to maintain an agent in Madrid? Or do they propose to have no relations whatever with the authorities in Central Spain?

The Prime Minister: As far as we know, the late Spanish Government are not in control of the territory around Madrid.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the late Spanish Ambassador continue to have the status held by the Duke of Alba before the recognition?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That question is on the Paper.

The Prime Minister: I have said there are no diplomatic relations between His Majesty's Government and the late Spanish Government. I cannot say without notice what the exact position of the Duke of Alba was then.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that, prior to the recognition, the Duke of Alba had no diplomatic status but, nevertheless, was in continual communication with the Foreign Office? Will that now be the position of Senor d'Azcarate?

The Prime Minister: No, it certainly will not, because the position of General Franco's Administration at that time was quite different from that of the late Government now.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that there has been no surrender by the late Government, and that the contest is still going on, is not the situation precisely what it was before?

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not a fact that the late Spanish Ambassador in London was accredited to the Government of Senor Negrin, and that that Government has been replaced by a joint committee?

Miss Wilkinson: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information from Madrid as to whether Senor Negrin's Government is in control, in view of the number of times we were warned not to accept mere Press reports?

The Prime Minister: We have received no communication from Senor Negrin's Government.

Miss Wilkinson: Then why assume that it is so?

Sir H. Croft: asked the Prime Minister the approximate number of civilian refugees in Catalonia who crossed the French frontier for whom grants in relief have been provided by Great Britain and other Powers; and what proportion of

the population of Catalonia this represents?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government, together with many other Governments, have made grants to certain international organisations for purposes of Spanish relief. One at least of these organisations recently extended its activities to cover the relief of Spanish refugees on French territory. I understand that some 400,000 refugees, that is some 17 per cent. of the normal population of Catalonia, crossed the frontier into France. Nearly all of these are doubtless receiving some form of assistance from the French Government.

Sir H. Croft: Is it not a fact that of that 400,000 some 300,000 were in fact militiamen, and that my question referred to refugees?

Mr. Butler: I cannot differentiate in detail without notice. I have given the total number.

Sir H. Croft: Will my right hon. Friend inquire?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I will do so.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Can my right hon. Friend say how many have gone back into Catalonia?

Mr. Butler: Not without notice.

Sir H. Croft: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large sums of money subscribed in Great Britain for food supplies for the relief of sufferers in Barcelona and the fact that this money was collected on humanitarian grounds, he can give an assurance that the food supplies thus purchased have in fact reached, or will reach, Barcelona; and whether he will seek the co-operation of the Spanish Government to this end?

Mr. Butler: Arrangements for the distribution of food supplies by independent relief organisations are not under the control of His Majesty's Government, and must be a matter for those organisations themselves.

Sir H. Croft: In view of the fact that my ever-generous constituents are subscribing to these food ships which are proposed, will my right hon. Friend see whether, if there is any difficulty about those ships getting to Barcelona, he can open negotiations with a view to facilitating them?

Mr. Butler: I certainly will look into the matter.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Minister also make inquiries as to how many cheques the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) sent?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether the French Government have informed him of the terms of the arrangement reached with General Franco as to the return of arms left in France by the Republican forces?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has received no information from the French Government on this subject.

Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether an agreement has been reached between the French Government and General Franco with regard to this matter?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly see whether an agreement has been made, but it is a matter for the French Government.

Mr. Roberts: Is it not a matter of some interest to us whether an agreement has been made?

Mr. Butler: In view of the interest to us, I will see whether inquiries can be made, but I must repeat to the House that it is a matter for the French Government.

Mr. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any further information as to the death of the master of the "Stangrove"; and whether he has any information as to the safety of the non-intervention officer?

Mr. Benn: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report on the loss of the "Stangrove"; whether she was captured on the high seas, and by whom; when information of the capture reached the Foreign Office what action was taken upon it, and when; whether the "Stangrove" received at any time help from the naval authorities; whether she was ordered to sea in bad weather; and what was the cause of the death of the captain?

Mr. Butler: A British Naval Court, which assembled in co-operation with His Majesty's Consul at Palma on 28th February, found that the master's death was due to injuries received accidentally when alone on board. According to a

report received from His Majesty's Consul, the Spanish authorities made every effort, when the crew were rescued, to save the master as well. The nonintervention observer is understood to be safe and to have been landed at Marseilles by one of His Majesty's ships on 2nd March. I made a statement on 20th February on the circumstances of this vessel's capture and the action taken by His Majesty's Government at Burgos, to which I would refer the right hon. Gentleman. I would only add that the "Stangrove" was not ordered to sea in bad weather, but was requested to raise steam. I am not aware that at the time of her capture any request for assistance was made by the master to the naval authorities.

Mr. Roberts: May I ask why the owners were not informed for a whole fortnight after the capture of the ship, and whether, perhaps, the life of the master might not have been saved had the owners been so informed?

Mr. Butler: It was understood in the present case that the master was known to have been in touch with His Majesty's Consul at Palma within 48 hours after the vessel's capture, and was therefore assumed to have followed the usual practice for establishing direct contact with the owners. An explanation in this sense has been given to the company concerned, and, in response to inquiries from shipping interests, my Noble Friend has agreed in future cases of this nature to inform the shipowners irrespective of any information which they may have received from the master. In regard to the latter part of the question, I would only say that I very much regret the death of the master in these tragic circumstances. Every effort was made to take the master off the ship at the time the crew were taken off, and he refused to leave his ship.

Mr. Benn: Why was it that this ship's captain, 68 years of age, was allowed to remain captive from the 8th to the 24th February, and then ordered to raise steam and go to sea? Does not that really amount to the constructive murder of the captain?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, I cannot accept that. The British Government made representations to the Burgos authorities immediately the news came through on


8th February. As a result, the Burgos authorities agreed to release the vessel, but, unfortunately, before its release took place, a storm arose in Palma Harbour, and the authorities requested the master to raise steam because of the danger of drifting on to the rocks. The master refused to raise steam, and the ship did drift on to the rocks. They saved the crew, but the master refused to leave his ship, and, unfortunately, he died from the head injuries he had received.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the master had coal on which to raise steam; and whether the master was not in fear that he was to be taken to another port in order to be kept in prolonged captivity?

Miss Wilkinson: How is it possible for the court of inquiry to say that these head injuries had been received accidentally when the master was alone?

Mr. Butler: I can only give the House the result of the Naval Court. I understand that they found that his injuries were received as a result, presumably, of concussion when the vessel went on to the rocks.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the fact that this ship was captured on the high seas, and that on that, and on other grounds, its detention was utterly illegal from 8th February onwards?

Mr. Butler: I have already told the House that we regard the capture and detention of this ship as illegal.

Mr. Benn: Is it not the fact that a naval officer was on the ship; and why did he not save the captain and get him out? Why did he leave him for a fortnight until he met his death?

Mr. W. Roberts: May I ask whether the evidence given before the court of inquiry can be made available to this House?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly investigate the point that the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) has put to me. With regard to the former point put by the right hon. Gentleman, the Government took immediate steps which resulted in the decision to release the vessel, but, unfortunately, circumstances arose of a nature over which we had no control which resulted in the vessel going on to the rocks.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman does not answer my question. Why was the master kept a fortnight in fair weather, and then ordered to sea in foul weather which resulted in his injuries and death?

Mr. Butler: The interchanges between His Majesty's Government and the Burgos authorities took the time in question, and resulted in the decision on the part of the Burgos authorities to release the vessel.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the name of the owners?

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not the fact that the master's death occurred from injuries received as a direct result of the unlawful seizure on the high seas; and is it not right to suggest that this constitutes constructive murder?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, I cannot accept that from the hon. and learned Member or anyone else. No one regrets these tragic circumstances more than we do. They were circumstances of a very extraordinary case, but I cannot accept the construction the hon. and learned Gentleman has put upon it.

Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he intends to take no further action in respect of this sea captain who met his death in the circumstances which are admitted on both sides?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, I never said that we would take no further action. I never made any such statement.

Mr. Benn: Who is to be brought to book for the death of this man?

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman has any matter to submit to me I will naturally consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (FOREIGN OFFICE FFICIAL'S VISIT).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister what was the purpose of Mr. Ashton-Gwatkin's recent mission to Berlin; and, in particular, whether matters relating to the former German colonies and a limitation of armaments came under discussion?

Mr. Butler: Mr. Ashton-Gwatkin visited Berlin in his capacity as Head of the Economic Section of the Foreign Office


to renew personal contact with German officials and to exchange views with them on the general economic situation. No proposals relating to the German Colonies or to limitation of armaments were discussed.

Mr. Bellenger: Was not the purpose of this visit to make preliminary investigations in readiness for the visit of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; and did not the German Government disclose their desire that a settlement of political questions should run concurrently with a settlement of trade questions?

Mr. Butler: I can only repeat what I have said, namely, that the object of this visit was to renew personal contact with German officials and exchange views on the general economic situation. I regret that I cannot add any more to the answer I have already given.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can tell the House what guarantees he has received from the Japanese Government that they will not maintain a permanent military occupation of the island of Hainan?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) on 15th February.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the present situation in the International Settlement at Shanghai?

Mr. Butler: A working understanding for co-operation between the Shanghai Municipal Council and the Japanese authorities has been reached which, my Noble Friend understands, does not impair the authority of the Council.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May we assume that the Government will continue to support the municipal council in their local negotiations with the Japanese authorities?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether any representations have been made to the Japanese Government about the stopping of commercial communications between Canton and Hong

Kong by the closure of the Pearl River on 13th October last, and the occupation of the Canton Delta by Japanese forces; and whether complaint has been lodged by the British Chamber of Commerce at Canton as to the disastrous consequences this will have on British trade, especially in Lancashire and other industrial centres, and on British prestige in Canton?

Mr. Butler: As stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) on 13th February, representations have been made to the Japanese Government about the closure of the Pearl River, but no representations have been made about the occupation of the Canton Delta. My Noble Friend has from time to time been kept informed of the views of the Canton British Chamber of Commerce, and is fully aware of the effect on British trade and British interests generally of the maintenance of the present restrictions. His Majesty's Government will continue through His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo and through the local authorities at Canton and Hong Kong to press for the early resumption of traffic.

Sir P. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the urgency of this matter, and the serious effect that it is having on Lancashire, which is already suffering quite enough unemployment, without any additional burden?

Mr. Butler: That is why I referred in my answer to representations which we have made to the Japanese authorities for the resumption of traffic.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the official announcement that on and after 10th March all business transactions in North China, including Tientsin, must be financed in federal reserve banknotes and the resulting foreign exchange be paid into the Yokohama specie bank, otherwise no permits to export will be granted; and whether, in order to counteract this discrimination against British banking and business, he will take steps to prohibit the entry of all exports from North China into British and Crown Colony ports unless accompanied by a consular certificate that they have been financed through a British, American or French bank?

16. Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on and after


the 10th instant the Japanese have announced that all business in North China must be transacted in federal reserve banknotes, and the resulting foreign exchange paid into the Yokohama specie bank; and whether he will take suitable retaliatory action against Japanese trade unless this discrimination against British interests is abandoned?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is informed that an announcement of measures of this nature to take effect on nth March has been issued, and that on and after that date a large number of North China products will not be allowed to pass the customs unless accompanied by a certificate that the foreign exchange involved has been sold to the Federal Reserve Bank. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government will consider all practicable measures for the defence of the British interests involved.

Mr. Moreing: Would my right hon. Friend give a more definite answer to the second part of my question, which asks the Government not only to consider what steps are to be taken, but to take steps? It is not a question of consideration, but of action.

Mr. Butler: I will consider whether any further action is necessary.

Mr. Hannah: Is not some other action absolutely necessary against Japan?

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister whether there is a British Consul at Ichang; and, if not, whether he will cause one to be sent there immediately for the maintenance of British interests and rights in Ichang, in view of the new Japanese drive up the Yangtze against that town?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; one of His Majesty's ships is present at Ichang and the commanding officer can be relied upon to take the necessary measures for the protection of British life and property. Nevertheless, should circumstances appear to demand the presence of a consular officer, one could be sent at short notice from Chungking.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to commence

the discussion on the adjustment of boundaries between Italian East Africa and the Sudan and British adjacent territories, as provided for in the protocol to the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

Mr. Butler: Consultation is taking place with the Egyptian Government regarding the adjustment of the boundary between Italian East Africa and the Sudan. It is contemplated that as soon as this consultation is terminated, His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome will submit to the Italian Government a memorandum embodying the proposals of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for the adjustment of the boundaries between Italian East Africa on the one hand and Kenya and British Somaliland on the other, and a second memorandum, jointly with the Egyptian Minister in Rome, containing proposals for the adjustment of the boundary between Italian East Africa and the Sudan.

Mr. Henderson: Are these discussions to take place through the media of memoranda or by conference?

Mr. Butler: I shall want notice of that question.

Mr. Benn: Will the House of Commons see these maps, and shall we be assured that Abyssinia really has been conquered by the Italians?

Mr. Butler: I am sure the House will be kept fully informed.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the expiry of the agreement with the Italian Government concerning British Somaliland on 1st March, 1939, any new agreement has been made or discussed, and whether, in the absence of any new agreement he will give an assurance that Members will be consulted before any extension or replacement of the present agreement takes place?

Mr. Butler: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the agreements, laid before the House as Command Paper No. 5773, regarding the grazing rights in Italian East Africa for British-protected Somali tribes and regarding transit facilities across British Somaliland. As grazing facilities in Italian East Africa are necessary for British-protected Somali tribes during the coming months, the Italian Government have, at the request of His Majesty's Government, consented to extend the agreements for six months.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

Russia.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is intended that he shall, during his visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, obtain information as to the rules applicable to able-bodied unemployed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 27th February to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams).

Mr. T. Smith: Does not that answer treat the question with the contempt that it deserves?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND.

Mr. D. Adams: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the balance of trade between Finland and the United Kingdom has continued since 1931 to in crease in favour of the former country; and whether he has explored the possibility of developing in Finland a larger market for appropriate United Kingdom manufactures?

Mr. Cross: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has constantly under review the possibility of developing larger markets for United Kingdom exports to all countries, including Finland. As regards Finland the hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend is shortly paying a visit to Helsing fors when this subject will come under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will include Bucharest in his itinerary of forthcoming visits to foreign capitals?

Mr. Cross: No, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend that the President of the Board of Trade indicated a few months ago the desire of His Majesty's Government to develop trade with that quarter of the world, and that being so, will the Secretary for Overseas Trade take an early opportunity of visiting that part of Europe for that purpose?

Mr. Cross: The question of sending a Commission is already under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER'S VISITS, FOREIGN CAPITALS.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in connection with his forthcoming visit to Germany, Russia, and the Scandinavian countries, he will have particular regard to the possibilities of expanding the exports of British cotton textile goods in those markets?

Mr. Cross: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 28th February in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) which indicates the scope of these conversations.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make a statement in answer to the case presented, and suggestions made to him on 17th February by the deputation representing the National Allotment Society; and what steps are to be taken to en courage the allotment movement, to secure more land for permanent allotments, and to assist the local authorities where necessary?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which is felt by poultry farmers at the delay in giving information regarding Government policy affecting their interests, while other agricultural matters seem to be getting preference; and, in view of the importance of an early indication of policy, when this will be given?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: A full statement as to the Government's policy for the poultry industry was made to the House as long ago as nth July last. Discussions on matters arising from that statement have taken place with representatives of various interests, including producers,


during recent weeks, and the Bill to give effect to the Government's proposals is now in preparation. I am not yet in a position, however, to say precisely when it will be ready for introduction.

Mr. Mathers: Can we have the assurance of the Minister that this small section of the agricultural industry is not being set aside on behalf of the more powerful interests that have had such an effect on the Government recently?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: In my view the poultry section is a very large section, and I can assure the hon. Member that it is the intention to do something; and I hope to introduce a Bill this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — BACON INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider introducing further legislation which will enable the particular circumstances of the Midland bacon curers' trade to be catered for as distinct from the Wiltshire trade?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am not satisfied that such further legislation is either necessary or desirable.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise the importance of the Midland bacon curers' trade, and is he aware that some very important curers in Evesham are unable to get the number of pigs they want, and that the whole matter requires further consideration?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I realise the difficulties of the case, but I do not see any reason for bringing in legislation at the present moment.

Mr. Hannah: Is the Minister aware that the Bilston factory ought to have 400 pigs to-day and they have got only 32?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK (PRICE).

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in any future legislation concerning milk, he will take note of the excessive price charged for milk in small towns and country villages under the Milk Marketing Board's regulations, with a view to providing for their diminution?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The minimum retail price of milk in rural areas is less than the minimum price in other areas.

Furthermore, a majority of milk distributors in an area may secure permission from the Board to reduce the minimum price for their area, and under this provision the minimum retail price has been reduced in 245 cases, mainly in small towns and villages. Lower prices may be charged for sales at the farm door. While I cannot accept the suggestion that prices charged are excessive in existing circumstances, it remains one of the basic features of Government policy that prices should be kept at as low a level as is consistent with fair remuneration to the suppliers of the milk.

Mr. Lambert: Can my right hon. Friend say how he can justify milk being sold at a compulsory price of, say, 6d. to 7d. a quart while plenty of producers would be glad to sell it in the country villages at 4d. or 5d. a quart?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As I have said, it is possible for the distributors to reduce the price by agreement among themselves. If there is any real trouble, Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act provides the machinery for investigation of the complaints.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARKETING ACTS (MONETARY PENALTIES).

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to state the findings of the Committee on Monetary Penalties under the Marketing Acts?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I understand that the committee have almost completed their inquiry and hope to present their report within the next fortnight. The report will be published as soon as possible thereafter.

Oral Answers to Questions — OXFORD UNIVERSITY (FLEMING TRIBUNAL).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to publish the evidence and findings of the Fleming Tribunal which led to the recommendation to pay the university of Oxford a sum of £51,584 out of public funds?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am placing a copy of the report of the Tribunal in the Library of the House. I do not consider it necessary to incur the expense—which would be very heavy—of publishing the evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SKILLED TRADESMEN (RECRUITMENT).

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General the procedure now in vogue in his Department for the recruitment of skilled men; and are indentures of apprenticeship accompanied with references as to character required?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): The majority of the skilled men employed by the Post Office have previously served in the Department as unskilled men and have been trained by the Department in its own classes of work. Skilled tradesmen are recruited occasionally through the Employment Exchanges or directly, subject to satisfactory evidence of experience and ability. Indentures of apprenticeship are not required, but satisfactory evidence as to character is required.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAVINGS BANK (STATISTICS).

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the total number of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank as at the last convenient date; the total amount of their deposits with accrued interest on that date, and the number of depositors who have taken advantage of the new regulation allowing the sum of £500 to be deposited in any one year; and will be consider introducing legislation, or making regulations, in order that depositors can deposit more than that amount yearly should they so desire?

Sir W. Womersley: The number of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank on 31st January, 1939, was 11,300,000, and the total amount of their deposits with accrued interest on that date was £515,475,000. There is no record of the number of depositors who have taken advantage of the regulation, introduced in 1923, which permits sums amounting to £500 to be accepted for deposit in any year ending 31st December. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) on 19th December last.

Mr. Day: Are we to understand that there is no hope of the small depositors being able to increase the amount?

Sir W. Womersley: The answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury

was that the limitation was laid down by Treasury Order in 1923, and that the Treasury were not prepared to agree to any increase in the limit.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the public desire within a 50-mile radius of Manchester for a television service; what are the prospects of such a service; and will he consult with the British Broadcasting Corporation with a view to having a television station constructed on a site that will enable the people of this area to have the opportunity of a television service?

Mr. Burke: asked the Postmaster-General whether the Television Advisory Committee has given any indication as to whether the time has arrived for the extension of television services to centres outside London?

Sir W. Wormersley: The extension of the television service to areas outside the range of the London Station involves serious problems both technical and financial. On the advice of the Television Advisory Committee technical research is being undertaken in regard to possible methods of relaying television programmes from London to other centres; but this research work is likely to occupy a considerable time; and it is feared that no decision concerning the extension of the service to other centres can be reached in the near future.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Can we have the semi-final of the English Cup televised?

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that there are lines in existence which would carry television, and that those lines are being used by the Post Office for other purposes?

Sir W. Womersley: It is not a fact that the Post Office are using the lines for other purposes, but it is a fact that we cannot use them at the present time, and that further technical research will be necessary before we can extend television. In reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) I may say that I should be very pleased to see the Cup semi-final televised because Grimsby Town will be playing the semi-final.

Mr. Thorne: Would there be any difficulty in hon. Members of this House going to Broadcasting House to see television?

Sir W. Womersley: Under the arrangements it is open for any hon. Member to go to Alexandra Palace to see television for himself.

Mr. Thorne: I meant Broadcasting House.

Mr. Kirby: Is the hon. Member aware that in the television district around Manchester there is one-third of the population of this country, and are they not entitled to this service as well as the people in the London area?

Sir W. Womersley: I am well aware of the position, and the Postmaster-General and myself are very anxious to get television into all the big centres as soon as possible.

Mr. Logan: Is there any truth in the idea that the Government are afraid of television in the North as it might show the representation of this House?

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give the House any further information regarding the advancement of television?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the annual report of the British Broadcasting Corporation for 1938, which has just been published as Command Paper 5951 and contains an account of the progress of the television service during that year. I would also refer the hon. Member to my answer to the questions on the subject of the television services which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) have on the Order Paper for to-day.

Mr. Day: May we be informed whether there is any prospect of any Provincial centres being linked up with this service?

Sir W. Womersley: If the hon. Member will look in the Official Report tomorrow he will see that in answer to previous questions this afternoon I have already stated the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMBASSY, PARIS (STAFF ACCOMMODATION).

Captain Cazalet: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been drawn to the conditions

under which many of the staff at the British Embassy in Paris are working; and whether any decision has been taken as regards purchasing the neighbouring house to provide adequate accommodation?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am aware of the conditions to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but the difficulties in the way of providing suitable alternative accommodation are considerable. No decision has been taken as regards purchasing the neighbouring house.

Captain Cazalet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the women typists are working under conditions which, from the point of view of health and sanitation, would be condemned in this country by his Department and the Ministry of Health?

Sir P. Sassoon: We are fully aware of the fact that the conditions are not satisfactory, and I hope we shall get over the difficulty soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (TECHNICAL GRADES).

44. Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the average time spent in the various groups for promotion from leading air-craftman to corporal, sergeant, and flight-sergeant; for what reasons the period spent in group 1 is longer; and whether he is aware that the majority in this group are ex-Royal Air Force apprentices and are thereby penalised from the pension point of view owing to the shorter period served as corporal, sergeant, etc.?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I regret that it is not practicable to furnish the information asked for in the first part of the question since the periods vary from time to time, and as between trades in each group. The policy of my Department is framed on the basis of providing better opportunities of promotion for ex-apprentice tradesmen and technical tradesmen than for other airmen. During the present period of rapid expansion it is, however, inevitable that there should be temporary inequalities in the rates of promotion, but the matter is kept under continuous review and steps are taken from time to time to adjust the position as far as possible.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that a number of corporals and sergeants of technical grades in group 1, who returned from the East in December last, have been recalled for duty at Halton two or three weeks before the expiration of their leave because there is a shortage of instructors; and whether he will cause immediate promotions to be made in this group to overcome this shortage so that these men who have been recalled may be issued with railway warrants and allowed to complete their leave?

Captain Balfour: On account of the urgent need for instructors in the group 1 fitter trade at Halton Royal Air Force Station, four instructors were recalled to duty after having had nearly two months of their overseas leave. The balances of leave, varying between 14 and 19 days, will be granted them at an early date. I would point out to the hon. Member that, whilst every endeavour is made to avoid recalling airmen from leave, leave is always subject to the exigencies of the Service.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that instructors of technical ability are detailed for duties that should normally be carried out by non-technical non-commissioned officers of group 5; and will he consider issuing instructions to ensure that these instructors are employed only on duties for which their technical knowledge is required, and the desirability of making an instructional allowance to these skilled men whilst carrying out the duties of technical instructors as is done in the Royal Navy?

Captain Balfour: Instructors of technical ability are normally required to carry out duties in connection with their trade and also such duties as may be required of them by virtue of their Royal Air Force rank. As regards the last part of the question, instructors like all other airmen receive a rate of pay commensurate with the duties they are asked to perform. It is not, therefore, necessary to supplement the pay of technical instructors by means of an allowance.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SITUATION (PRESS STATEMENTS).

Mr. J. P. Morris: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that certain

organs of the Press during the past few years have continuously published alarming statements regarding the international situation, which in many cases were grossly exaggerated, and in others false; that such publications have caused great damage to many sections of our people; and will he consider introducing legislation to impose penalties upon the publication of demonstrably false news which results in causing anxiety and loss to the business community, the Stock Exchange, and the general public?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that sensational and inaccurate statements on the international situation have not infrequently been published by certain sections of the Press. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I myself have, on a number of occasions, emphasised the importance of restraint on the part of the Press in dealing with foreign affairs, a view, I am happy to say, which is fully shared by the more responsible journalists and newspapers in this country and by the bodies representative of their interests. I trust that their influence may be sufficient to keep the undesirable practice referred to in check.

Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Friday last in the lunch edition of the "Evening Standard" there appeared a report that Italy had called up 1,000,000 men including those rejected as being too small, that subsequently such report was proved to be false but pending its denial widespread consternation was caused to our people, and there was great loss to the business community, and is he aware that such reports are not conducive to the successful conclusion of his peace policy?

Miss Wilkinson: May we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that, whatever may be the effect on the nerves of the Stock Exchange, there shall be no censorship of the Press in this country?

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he introduces legislation which effectively prevents the publication of false news and views it will be most disastrous for the prospects of the Government at the next General Election?

Mr. G. Strauss: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in point of fact, a large number of newspapers supporting His Majesty's Government habitually gloss


over the serious international situation with a false, misleading and dangerous optimism?

Mr. Lawson: Is there not a good deal of resentment at the publication of some of the news with regard to other countries which is true, and will the right hon. Gentleman when he introduces legislation bear this point in mind?

The Prime Minister: I have no intention of introducing legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (ALBERTA OILFIELD).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress has been made with inquiries into the desirability of the development of the Alberta oilfield for the purposes of the British Navy?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): I do not know what inquiries my hon. Friend has in mind. The Admiralty are naturally very interested in the development of this Empire oilfield, and should oil fuel to Admiralty specification be produced and made accessible to tanker transport, they would certainly be willing to enter into negotiations with a view to purchasing supplies.

Sir P. Hurd: Is it not a fact that the Admiralty have had representatives looking over this field?

Colonel Llewellin: We have not had representatives looking over the field, but we have had the specifications sent to us. At the moment they do not comply with our requirements.

Sir H. Croft: In view of the great strategic importance of this supply of oil, if it proves to be adequate and of the right quality, will the Admiralty take steps to make urgent inquiries before this oilfield falls into the hands of a company connected with a country which may be a potential enemy?

Colonel Llewellin: The new oilfield in Canada is primarily a matter for the Canadian Government, and I do not think there is any chance of it being developed by the wrong persons. We are certainly anxious to encourage it for strategic reasons if it produces such oil as

the Navy can burn. If it does not, I am afraid it is not of such use.

Mr. Batey: Is there any need to encourage the development of this oilfield when the Navy can get all the oil it wants in this country by extracting oil from coal?

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERS (EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to demands for improved conditions of employment for professional football players; and whether the services of a conciliation officer from his Department will be made available to the Players Union and the Football League?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I have no knowledge of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member other than that contained in reports that have appeared in the Press. While the services of my Department are at all times available to assist in the settlement of disputes concerning working conditions, I feel sure that the various matters involved in this case can best be settled by the organisations directly concerned.

Mr. Morrison: I take it that any request from either of the parties concerned to the hon. Member's Department for assistance in providing conciliation officers to deal with some of the difficult matters arising in this dispute, will receive attention?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We shall follow our usual procedure.

Viscountess Astor: Would it not be better for the Government to look after the football pools rather than football players?

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOON BARRAGE DEPOT, LIVERPOOL (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Errington: asked the Minister of Labour the reason why only 76 men out of 271 engaged in Government work at the balloon barrage depot at Fazakerley, Liverpool, were given employment through the Employment Exchange service; and from what sources the remainder were obtained?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Inquiries are being made in the matter and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Errington: Does the Minister realise that there is considerable public disturbance and feeling in regard to this proportion, and will he take some steps to see that a larger proportion of people is obtained through the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is always our desire that as many people as possible should be recruited through the local Employment Exchanges, but in this case we are making inquiries and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAY CAMPS (LAND VALUES).

Mr. MacLaren: asked the Minister of Health whether he intends to take action to comply with the request made by the camps sub-committee of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England to check the speculation in land values owing to the demand now being made for sites for evacuation camps, camp schools, and holiday camps?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): So far as concerns the sites for the proposed 50 camps to be erected by public corporations on behalf of the Government the matter is being fully considered in connection with the necessary legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the position of the Lancashire County Council public assistance committee who during the last 12 months have paid out £190,000 domiciliary relief to augment the payments of 10s. a week to old age pensioners; and will he make a statement as to whether his Department intends to have the position of these payments to old age pensioners examined so that the cost will be equally distributed?

Mr. Bernays: I have seen a report in the Press to the effect of the statement in the first part of the question. I am not sure that I fully appreciate what the hon. Member has in mind as regards the second part. He will, of course, be

aware that the question of equalising the cost of public assistance over the whole country was fully debated in this House on 1st February.

Mr. Tinker: The point I have in mind is that this is a matter which the Government should deal with. I am asking for a statement from the Government that they realise the point?

Mr. Bernays: We fully realise the point, and I made a full statement on the matter on 1st February.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTING FORCES (DEPENDANTS, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Health the number of dependants of all serving ranks of His Majesty's Forces who have been compelled to seek Poor Law relief?

Mr. Bernays: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. Davies: Could not the hon. Member send out a circular to the local authorities where the information is available? He would be able to answer the question in the near future?

Mr. Bernays: I will consult my right hon. Friend on the matter, but he is very reluctant to put further pressure of work on local authorities.

Mr. Logan: Does the hon. Member not think it a scandal, and ought he not to be able to give the information, seeing that the dependants of men who are dead have to look for Poor Law relief, and that the dependants of men who are serving in the Army have also to go for relief?

Mr. Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now prepared to make provisions for the reimbursement of local authorities of the additional cost imposed by the payment of Poor Law relief to the dependants of those serving in His Majesty's forces, seeing that the latter are in full employment?

Mr. Bernays: The answer is, No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Member make representations to the Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view of getting this scandal removed from the armed forces,


and that men in full employment shall be able to get sufficient to keep their dependants?

Mr. Garro Jones: What influence does the hon. Member think is wielded by these people on recruiting for the Navy and other Services in the North and in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that on Wednesday last the City Council of Liverpool failed to approve proposals of the Air-Raid Precautions Committee; that members of all political parties in the council have petitioned the Lord Mayor to summon a special meeting to consider the matter; that the public of Liverpool is seriously disturbed at the lack of progress to date; that the Home Office regional officer has told the Air-Raid Precautions Committee that the city is in the definitely-bad class as regards progress with precautions; and will he inform the House of the actual state of preparations in Liverpool, bearing in mind particularly the great importance of the port in time of war and the vital need for its adequate protection?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the position is generally as stated by the hon. Member; but that, while it is true that progress with air-raid precautions in Liverpool has not hitherto been as great as in many other areas, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is hopeful that material progress will be made at an early date, and he is asking his local representative to keep in close touch with the local authority.

Mr. Kirby: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, will he be good enough to ask the Lord Privy Seal to look rather closely into this matter, having regard to the fact that the chief constable recommended an A.R.P. headquarters as far back as May of last year, and that many centres for decontamination and first-aid posts have been closed down?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend is looking closely into this matter.

Mr. Mabane: Is it not a fact that the Liverpool A.R.P. wardens are about the best in the country?

Mr. Logan: In regard to the farce which is going on in Liverpool, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly make inquiries to see whether underground protection can be given as at present the thing is in absolute disorder in that city? I know, because I am right in the midst of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that, though a schoolchild must remain at school to the end of the year following the sixteenth birthday, the additional benefit ceases on the actual date of the birthday; and will he take appropriate measures to end this injustice?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I am not clear what particular difficulty my hon. Friend has in mind. Perhaps he will be good enough to communicate with me on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATISTICS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many boys and girls left the elementary schools for the years ended 1936, 1937, and 1938?

Mr. Lindsay: As the answer consists of a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the statement:

ENGLAND AND WALES.


Number of pupils who left public elementary schools during the years ended 31st March, 1936, 1937 and 1938.


Year ended 31st March.
Boys.
Girls.
Total.


1936
…
…
346,201
329,150
675,351


1937
…
…
347,096
334,024
681,120


1938
…
…
290,041
280,749
570,790

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (COLOURS).

Mr. Beaumont: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has


come to any decision as to the possibility of enabling Territorial units to obtain their colours from the same source as Regular units?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir. I hope to be able to refer to this matter when introducing the Army Estimates on Wednesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — GELIGNITE (THEFT, SCOTLAND).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the stealing of large quantities of gelignite in Scotland, he is as yet taking steps to keep Irish enemies out of Great Britain?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Inquiries into this theft are being pursued but so far no information has been obtained to connect in any way the person or persons concerned with the subject which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. On that subject my right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply which he gave on 2nd February.

Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask whether it is the opinion of the Home Secretary that this gelignite in Scotland has no connection with the I.R.A. outrages?

Mr. Lloyd: I said in my answer that the inquiries have not yet been completed.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the hon. Gentleman convinced that nothing that happened was caused by the I.R.A. imported into this country?

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to define what "Irish enemies" means?

Colonel Wedgwood: The I.R.A., for the information of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE BRIGADES ACT, 1938.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any communications from local authorities relating to the serious financial burden to be thrown upon ratepayers, particularly in rural districts, as a result of the coming into operation of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938; and whether he is able to hold out any hope of assistance in such areas?

Mr. G. Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave on 7th February to a question by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) dealing with this matter.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this will be a burden in my own area, and that it will be impossible for them to bear a heavy increase in the rates?

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the answer.

Mr. Logan: asked the Home Secretary what amount has been received by the City of Liverpool and Salford, respectively, out of the £600,000 allocated by the insurance interests arising out of the passing of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938?

Mr. Lloyd: None, Sir; part of the money in question has been paid to eight local authorities in Great Britain, whose statutory powers to make charges for in district fire brigades services were repealed by the Fire Brigades Act. Provisions in local Acts under which the insurers are liable for certain expenses of the Liverpool and Salford fire brigades in attending fires on insured property were not affected by the passage into law of the Fire Brigades Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE (CONTRACTS, PROFIT).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause a White Paper to be published defining what steps will be taken to find out what amount of profits are made out of Government contracts that are given out to private firms; and what he considers a fair standard of profit?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): The measures adopted by the Government for regulating the prices to be paid under Government contracts in connection with the Defence programme have been described on several occasions to the Estimates Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the House. My right hon. Friend does not think it is necessary to issue a White Paper on the subject. It is not possible to lay down a fixed rate of profit


for all contracts; the appropriate rate must vary according to the circumstances of each case.

Mr. Tinkers: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is great discontent in the country about these profits, and would it not be as well for the Government and the House to have something issued, and to examine the whole question and see whether there is anything in the charges that are made?

Captain Wallace: If the hon. Gentleman considers the answer I have given, I think he will see that the issue of a White Paper would not improve the position in any way.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform us whether a maximum rate of profit is fixed by the Treasury, and, if so, would he care to disclose what it is?

Captain Wallace: I have already said that it is not possible to lay down a fixed rate of profit for all contracts.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the case of one large class of Government con tracts, the prices are fixed by reference to a formula known as the McLintock Agreement, without knowledge of which it is impossible to work out how the price is arrived at, and may I ask——?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I suggest the hon. Member might forward this information. Mr. Tinker.

Mr. Garro Jones: It has always been permitted for an hon. Member to put a postulatory phrase at the beginning of his question, but I want to ask whether this——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have called the next question.

Mr. Garro Jones: But, Mr. Deputy- Speaker, may I say, with great respect— [Hon. Members: "Order!"]—On a point of Order. Questions of that kind, longer and of the same character, have been allowed the whole day——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be un fortunate to the hon. Member——

Mr. Garro Jones: It is unfair. That is what troubles me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that observation immediately. He has accused the

Chair of being unfair. I ask him to withdraw that accusation.

Mr. Garro Jones: Certainly, I withdraw any reflection upon your immediate Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I do think that if hon. Members are to be allowed——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member was asked to withdraw the statement that he made. When he is asked to withdraw a statement he should do so simply and clearly, and not qualify it.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many organisations have been formed to assist old age pensioners in their appeal for an increase in the 10s. a week pension, and that on 28th February a meeting was held at Bolton by the Bolton and District Old Age Pensioners' Association and a resolution was carried urging the Government to increase the pension to £1 a week; and will he meet a deputation from the old age pensioners to hear them state their case?

Captain Wallace: I am aware that such organisations have been formed, but my right hon. Friend has recently received two deputations on the subject from representative bodies, and he does not think that any useful purpose would be served by a further deputation such as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give these old age pensioners some hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive a deputation? After all, they are an important body and they are anxious to put their case before the Chancellor. I think the Chancellor ought to receive such a body, and see what they have to say.

Captain Wallaces: On Thursday, 2nd February, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a deputation representing all parties in the House, and on Wednesday, 15th February, he received a deputation from the Trades Union Congress. On both occasions, notices were issued to the Press, after the meeting, giving a list of the people who attended and stating that the Chancellor promised to give consideration to the points put to him. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend does


not think that any useful purpose would be served by receiving another deputation.

Sir John Haslam: Is it not a fact that one of the hon. Members representing Bolton drew my right hon. and gallant Friend's attention to this subject some days ago?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister,']

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 91.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[3.47 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Medlicott, F.


Albery, Sir Irving
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J,
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Errington, E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isla at Thanel)
Fleming, E. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. S.


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Sir G. W, G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Baxter, A. Severity
Furness, S. N.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gledhill, G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Patrick, C. M.


Barnays, R. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Peake, O,


Blair, Sir R.
Granville, E. L.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pilkinston, R.


Boulton, W. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ralkes, H. V. A. M.


Brail, Sir W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Broadbridge, Sir. T.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rankin, Sir R.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Brooke. H, (Lewisham, W.)
Harvey, Sir G.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Romer, J. R.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hely-Hutchlnson, M. R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Burton, Cat. H W.
Hencage, Lieut-Colonel A. P.
Robinson. J. R. (Blackpool)


Butcher, H. W.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Row, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R


Cazelet, Capt V. A. (Chippenham)
Howitt, Dr. A, B.
Rugglas-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Channon, H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Chapman, A. (Rutharglen)
Hunloke, H. P
Salmon, Sir I.


Chapman, Sir S (Edinburgh, S.)
Hunter, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Sandys, E. D.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Keeling, E. H.
Selley, H. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Simmonds, O. E.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R,
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kimball, L.
Smith, Bracewall (Dulwich)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Critchley, A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cross, R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crossley, A. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lewis, O.
Suater, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Davidson, Viscountess
Liddall, W. S.
Sutotiffe, H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovll)
Lindsay, K. M.
Tale, Mavis C.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J
Thomas, J. p. L.


De la Bère, R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Touche, G. C.


Denman, Hon. R. O.
Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.


Denville, Alfred
Lyons, A. M.
Turton, R. H.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Wakefield, W. W.


Doland, G. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Han. Evan


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Drewe, C.
McKis, J. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duggan, H. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvis


Duncan, J. A. L.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Dunglass, Lord
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)




Williams, C. (Torquay)
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.



Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
York, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Herbert and Mr. Muuro.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Ridley, G.


Adams, D. (Consatt)
Hall, C. H. (Aberdara)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'tsbr.)
Hardie, Agnes
Sanders, W. S.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Stely, Sir H. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Silkin, L.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Simpson, F. B.


Batay, J.
Hilts, A. (Pontefract)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorenson, R. W.


Broad, F. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Charlaton, H. C
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Incs)
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. Ln T.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacNeill Weir, L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Atterclifle)


Grain, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green wood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pearson, A.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hamsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE LOANS BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: This is the fifth and final stage in this House of this proposal, which has now been before us for over a fortnight. On the four previous occasions on which discussion has taken place, a great deal has been said, but so important is this Measure that I am sure neither the Government nor the House generally will grudge a short time for further consideration of it at this stage.
I do not think it will come as any surprise to the House when I say that my right hon. and hon. Friends who sit with me on these benches do not propose to divide the House against the Third Reading of the Bill. This is the natural result of the logic of events to which all parties in this House are subject. I would remind hon. Members that the first so-called National Government was formed mainly to uphold and maintain the Gold Standard, but one of its first actions was to depart from the Gold Standard. Then the National Government, vowing its opposition to our policy of nationalising the Bank of England, has in each succeeding Currency Bill drawn nearer and nearer to that position. To-day we find this Government in opposition to foreign Governments with which this country has been traditionally friendly, while making friends with other Governments which traditional prejudice might incline them to oppose.
In the present proposals, the Government and their City friends are throwing over completely, cherished and orthodox financial traditions. They are setting out for an unknown destination on an uncharted sea. We on these benches, in spite of our opposition to much of the Government's foreign policy from which, in our opinion, arises the need for this Bill, find ourselves driven into the position of not opposing this Bill. That does not arise because the foreign policy of the Government has been successful, but just because the foreign policy of the Government has been a failure. The fact that

we take this course to-day does not mean that we abate in any respect our hostility to a great deal of the Government's foreign action, nor does it commit us in any way to acquiesce in the Budget which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to introduce later, and to the allocation that he decides to make between taxing and borrowing to pay for the expenditure of the Budget.
With regard to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, I understand that they also will almost certainly take the same course, equally driven by the logic of events in this matter, just as in individual cases they are driven by that logic to accept Socialist action, which in theory they oppose. The fact is that we of the British race are essentially an empirical people. We refuse to allow preconceived theories to prevent us from learning by experience. Up to a point that is a good thing and I hope it will continue; but the Government will be deceiving themselves if they think that the logic of events is in any way a complete substitute for intelligent planning. Waiting until the logic of events drives one into a certain course generally involves a very late start, it frequently involves a wrong start and much waste, it often means that essential matters are not dealt with at all, and it often results in the adoption of a pis aller not nearly as effective as a well-thought-out scheme.
The Government are champions in the matter of non-planning. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury admitted to me last Thursday night that the £400,000,000 additional asked for in this Bill is not a planned figure at all. The Prime Minister in effect admitted to me about a fortnight ago that the scheme for the repayment of the Loan had largely gone west and that there was no other scheme of the Government in sight. The Government as a whole admit that they cannot foresee or attempt to predict the financial future. I do not want to put a case which cannot be sustained, and I am quite willing to agree that it is, of course, true that in view of the black international clouds no one can be expected to predict or foresee the future, which must depend on international contingencies. The game of international relationships to-day is like a game of chess; our move must depend upon the move of those sitting opposite to us who have charge of the other pieces.


All the same, in a game of chess one must have a plan.
If I were prepared to digress, which I have no intention of doing, I could show how the position to-day arises from the failure to prepare a good plan in days gone by. But I have no desire on this occasion to digress, no desire to rake over the ashes of the past. What I do want to do, what is I think of value, is to bring home to the Government the need for making a plan to-day. I want the Government to make a plan to marry economic recovery to the monetary expansion which is implied in this Budget deficit. I want the Government to plan to marry nutrition to agricultural prosperity. I want the Government to marry the provision of deep trenches and of better communications to the cure of enforced idleness both of human and material power. None of these things will be done adequately unless the Government plan to have them done. The unemployment figures of to-day may go down a little, but they will not be reduced to the insignificant figures which in this time of big Government orders they ought to reach, unless the Government set out to plan their reduction. Children will go on being under-nourished, bridges in England and Scotland, such as over the Forth and the Severn, will go on being unbuilt, unless the Government take these things in hand.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think the right hon. Gentleman is now inclined to digress.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am very 10th to question your Ruling in any way, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think that what I was saying was relevant to the issue. My point is that here is this vast sum to be spent and I want it to be spent in the right way. I was not going any further with that point, but I think that what I was saying was strictly revelant to the Third Reading of the Bill. I do not think you will have any occasion to object to what I am now going to say. I want to look even a little further ahead. This Bill for the borrowing of this very large sum of money arises admittedly from the international tension. We all hope that that tension will one day be broken, not by war, not by the overriding of other peoples' will in submission to our will, but by the realisation by people of all nations that only by mutual

good will and give-and-take can the greatest benefit of each be attained. Of course none of us can foresee when that will come about. We all believe, if we are optimists at all, that it will come about one day, and we all hope and pray that it will come soon. But there is grave danger, if the Government have no plan, that when peace breaks out it may bring with it economic disaster and collapse. We have seen how the new control of man over the forces of nature, with the possibility of abundance, has produced unemployment, and the only remedy that the Government have been able to find has been artificial scarcity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep a little more closely to the question before the House, which is the Third Reading of the Bill. The Bill is a Bill to extend the figure of the Defence Loans Act, and there is, therefore, a very small area to be covered in the discussion.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: What I want to say is really directly concerned with this sum of money. I am calling attention to something which arises directly out of it. Here the Government are asking for a large addition to this sum of money. I am pointing out that they need a plan not only for the spending of this money wisely, but in order to be prepared for the situation when the money that they are spending is no longer required. I submit that that has a direct concern even with the Third Reading of the Bill. But I am not dealing with that point at any length.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman earlier in his speech said that he would not go into details. This Bill refers to borrowing for the purpose of defence and the discussion must be confined to matters of defence. For the sake of the House generally I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to that subject; otherwise we shall be having a Debate on the entire policy of the Government in matters generally.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I wish to fall in with your Ruling. I have very few more remarks to make, and they do arise directly out of the position which this Bill contemplates. All that I am trying to show is that the Government have this programme of expenditure in view and they have not only to envisage that spending but to envisage also what will be the


position when the spending comes to an end, that the Government must not be allowed to be unprepared when this monstrous production of war material is ended. Some will say that that is a long way ahead and that we need not start planning now. That is a half truth. It is wonderful how far coming events cast their shadow before. We may not have such a very long notice of that happy consummation. It will take a long time to prepare the necessary plans for using Government money, instead of for making mere armaments, for the purposes of peace. We were unprepared in 1919–20. I beg the Government and the House to see that we are not equally unprepared if and when the situation that we all greatly desire comes about and the expenditure of this money directly on preparations for war is no longer necessary.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I hope I shall not trespass too far. I do not wish in any way to enter into many of the general questions which have been raised in the course of these Debates, and I do not wish to deal with the questions of foreign affairs which have made this Bill necessary, but I do want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is replying to-day, to give us the benefit of his views on a subject which has not been discussed during this Debate at any great length, namely, the effect of this vast expenditure, which is being met to such a large extent now by loans, on the general economic and the industrial and financial situation of this country. So far in this Debate a few speakers have touched on the subject, but I do not think it has had nearly as much attention as it should have had. We are constantly hearing it said that we must make great sacrifices to meet the present situation, and we have had an increase of Income Tax amounting to 1s. on the standard rate, and increases of indirect taxes, but I have a feeling that if it were not for such a large part of next year's programme being met by borrowing, the armaments programme would be looked upon in many circles with very much less favour than it is to-day. The fact that such a large part is being met by loan is postponing the burden on the taxpayer, and it is quite right that some of it should be postponed, but it is also having other

indirect effects which I would like to discuss for a moment.
Theoretically, of course, such a large expenditure on an unproductive purpose such as armaments should impoverish the community very greatly, but that is true only if the productive capacity of the country was fully occupied before those productive forces were turned to the manufacture of armaments, and I imagine that it would be generally accepted that in fact to-day, whatever may happen in the future, the armaments programme has not reduced the standard of living of the people of this country. We have had to meet increased direct and indirect taxation, we have had to forego a reduction of taxation which might otherwise have been available, and we are foregoing increases in the social services which are very desirable. We are told when we raise various matters, such as old age pensions, that it is impossible to meet those claims on account of the demand for armaments, but in fact the actual standard of living of the people of this country to-day, as I think the President of the Board of Trade pointed out in winding up the Debate on unemployment the other day, was higher last year than it was the year before, and he quoted, I think I remember, that valuable source of information for Government speakers when in difficulty—the "Daily Herald" —to prove his point. The standard of living of our people has not yet suffered, but we are now coming to a time in the armaments programme when the cost of it is increasing very greatly and when it is no longer an armaments programme added to an upswing in the cycle of trade, but an increased armaments programme on top of a time of recession or depression, and that may make a very considerable difference next year and in the years to come.
I think it is worth comparing for a moment the position in this country with the position in the country with which we are engaged in this race, and considering how the weight of the armaments programme in Germany has affected the people of that country. In the first place, I take it that the German programme has been very much larger than our programme and that it still is larger. It is larger in cost, for a variety of reasons. There is conscription, and there are questions of fortifications which do


not arise with us. It is larger very considerably than the efforts that we are making, and it is larger also relatively, as a proportion of the national income. Without going into any figures, it may be stated that the German programme uses a larger percentage of the national income than ours is doing. Some estimates are that it is using as much as 50 per cent. of the national income of that country. In order to meet that situation, the German Government have adopted a method of complete control over the economic life of their country—control of wages and prices, complete control of foreign trade, and complete control of investments. It has been financed by credits, by loans, by taxation, and, more recently, by confiscation of the property of Jews and others.
But the situation there differs from that in this country in that, in Germany, they have succeeded in mobilising the whole productive strength of their country and in that no unemployment exists to-day. In fact, the tendency is to import labour into Germany. The fact that no unemployment exists in Germany must not be taken, though, to mean that the standard of living there has risen. Indeed, it is doubtful whether it has risen at all, or more than a very little, during the years since 1932, and the total available consumption of goods has merely been spread over the whole population in a more equitable way now. But the point that I wish to make is that the difference is that in Germany the whole productive energy of the country has been mobilised for the purposes of this vast programme of armaments which they are carrying out and which is the reason for our efforts here, and that in order to do that the rulers of Germany have had to take complete control of their economic system. I do not say that we ought to have followed the methods of that country, and it is not my purpose, in drawing attention to these facts, to suggest that, but it is my purpose to suggest that while we have 2,000,000 unemployed in this country, while we have in fact failed even to mobilise our own man-power, we shall not be able to compete in this race effectively, and it does surprise me that so little attention has been given in these Debates to this problem, which seems to me to be one of the fundamental problems behind the arms programme.
The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who has just spoken, referred to it the other day when he was speaking, I think on the Second Reading, and pointed out what has been the attitude of the Government in Germany, that in fact the vast reserves of unemployment that the present German Government had when they came into power were treated, not as a liability, but as an asset. It made it possible for them to set this vast machine to work that they had the men available, and if only the Government of this country had regarded as an asset the fact that we have men who are available, as well as the fact that we have financial resources, our general situation would have been better. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), speaking on the Committee stage, said that ultimately the only way in which we could pay for this programme was by increasing the national income, and he made various proposals how that could be done, into which I will not enter in any detail; but that, surely, is the simple truth, that we shall be faced with the bankruptcy to which the Prime Minister referred at the end of his speech unless the national income can be increased to meet the enormous weight of this output of arms.
In the meantime, what is happening, it appears to me, is that the industrial structure of this country is being destroyed. A very large proportion of the money required in this Bill is for the Air Ministry, and if I might make one specific inquiry about that, I would ask this question: The Air Ministry programme is involved in creating a great deal of plant for the production of aeroplanes, and there are many hon. Members who are better informed on that subject than I am and who are very dissatisfied with the output which is being obtained. I merely ask whether the fact that we can still buy motor cars at the same prices as before the rearmament programme is not rather a surprising fact. There is a shortage of skilled labour, but apparently none has in fact been diverted from the production of either private or commercial motor cars. I referred at the beginning of my speech to the fact that we were called upon to make sacrifices, and I am wondering whether one of the sacrifices that we might make might not be to use our cars a little longer—in fact, to reduce the output of ordinary commercial motor cars in


order to make available the skill and the productive capacity of the motor-car industry for armaments work.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is trying very hard to relate this to the Bill, but if I could find this in order, I should be obliged to wonder what limit there could be to the Debate.

Mr. Roberts: I bow to your Ruling, but the relation was a simple one in my own mind. It was that if the available plant for motor car manufacture were used to a greater extent it would be an economy, because it would render the establishment of such a large amount of new productive power——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On that basis the hon. Member would be able to discuss every possible trade and industry he could think of. There must be some limit.

Mr. Roberts: I again bow to your Ruling, but a large part of the sum involved in this £800,000,000 is to be spent on the Air Ministry, and although I realise that there are differences between a Third Reading Debate and a Committee Stage Debate, I was under the impression that if it were possible to talk about profiteering, as it was on the Committee stage, it might also be possible

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Bill does not provide for expenditure at all, so that there is no expenditure which can possibly be discussed upon the Third Reading. That comes on the Estimates. The only point in connection with this Bill, as far as I can see, is the difference between borrowing money and raising it by taxation.

Mr. Roberts: I am in some little difficulty because if money is to be borrowed, surely we are entitled to ask how it is to be spent?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but at another time.

Mr. Alan Herbert: On a point of Order. The Bill provides for additional services to the Defence Services, namely, air-raid precautionary services and grants in aid of the Essential Commodities Reserves Fund. Is it in order to discuss those services?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly not.

Mr. Roberts: I will not pursue the point except to finish what I was saying in one sentence. This development in the aircraft industry is distorting our industrial development, and if the production of motor cars were lessened owing to a falling off in demand there would be provided a valuable alternative if and when the armaments programme comes to an end. As it is, a vast surplus productive capacity is being created, perhaps necessarily, because in war time it may be necessary to have the whole of the aircraft capacity plus any capacity which could be taken over from the manufacture of motor cars. It would make a more balanced industrial situation if, in fact, the Government were also pressing on more energetically with air-raid precautions. I will not dwell in detail on that because I realise that I should be out of order, but if I may make a comparison, I would say that one of the reasons why German workers are fully occupied is that a large number of them are engaged on fortifications. We do not require them in this country. The building trade will, as some of the structural work in the armaments programme is completed, suffer a severe depression.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is doing exactly what I said he could not do. If he pursues that line there is no limit to the number of industries he can discuss. I must ask him to confine himself on the Third Reading of the Bill to the question of the borrowing of the money.

Mr. Roberts: I will proceed to a different point which I hope may be in order. I would like to comment on a part of the speech which the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) made the other night, in which he suggested that the Air Ministry had positively gone out of its way to create rings.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going from bad to worse. He may have some difficulty in finding something to say but I must not allow him to say things which are out of order.

Mr. Roberts: I am puzzled, because I was going to make a specific suggestion, from a comparison of what is happening in other countries, as to a way in which economies might be made. I was going to refer to the proposal made by the right


hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and inform him that his proposal is being carried out in another country, but if that is not in order I will not proceed with it. If it is in order, however, I will proceed with it ——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would rather the hon. Member did not. I do not want to interrupt him too often, but it is clear from what he has said that it would not be in order.

Mr. Roberts: I will proceed to recapitulate the general questions which I wanted to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are now borrowing for this purpose probably two-thirds of the total national savings, and perhaps the Chancellor would be good enough to make some observations on what the effect of that may be, taking into account the fact that if it were not for the expenditure which is taking place on armaments we should probably be experiencing a serious trade recession, with unemployment at a much higher figure. There is no doubt that the armaments programme is interfering in some branches of our export trade and that our adverse trade balance is getting worse. In the light of that general situation, is the Chancellor satisfied that the armaments programme as it stands to-day can be financed in this way without dealing with the problems of increasing our national income and of reabsorbing the productive capacity which is idle? Has he given any consideration to the other problems which arise out of this question? Germany has been forced into a position of taking greater control over industry in order to make their armaments programme possible.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not only quite irrelevant, but he is now being guilty of repetition of what he has already said.

Mr. Herbert: On a point of Order. I am afraid that I could not have expressed myself clearly when I rose before. Two points arise on this Bill. The first is in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, which increases the amount which may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund to £800,000,000. The other point is in Subsection (2), which provides that "Defence Services" shall include Air-Raid Precautionary Services and grants-in-aid of the Essential Commodities Reserves Fund. May I ask your guidance on these

points? Are we not, even on the Third Reading Debate, to be allowed to discuss on Sub-section (2) whether we desire Air-Raid Precautionary Services to be included in the Defence Services under the Act of 1937, and, if so, what Air-Raid Precautionary Services and what proportion of the money shall be borrowed in respect of them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, that would be in order, but I do not see what bearing this point of Order has on the Rulings I have been giving. If the hon. Member wishes to make a speech he may do so if he succeeds in catching my eye, but he will be stopped if he goes too far.

Mr. Herbert: I wanted to make the position clear, for I think I misled you before.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: At the end of the long series of Debates on this Bill two things stand out with great prominence. The first is the absolute unanimity in the House upon the necessity for carrying the defence programme to the end. The other is the unchallengeability of this country to see that programme through with whatever financial and other resources are necessary. Differences have been expressed on the foreign policy of the Government, and there have been criticisms about the methods and scope of the rearmament programme. That is natural and proper in a democratic assembly, but on the basic principle of rendering this country safe against attack and prepared to play its part in the defence of freedom, wherever a threat to dominate the world is evident, this House and people are united. They are not only united, but resolute and determined. They are fortified in that stand by the sure knowledge that, despite the trade depression of recent years and the increasing cost of social services, the wealth, the resources and the productive capacity of this country are more than enough to meet the cost of this programme and still to leave much in the National Exchequer for even greater needs if, unfortunately, they should arise in the years to come.
It is well that we should make these things plain now. These truths should be broadcast to the world, for, better perhaps than anything else, they may serve to discourage aggression whereever it is now threatened. Let nobody or no


country be under any misapprehension. Whatever may have been the position at the time of Munich, the crisis of last September roused this country to a sense of the realities of the situation, and to-day it is alert, watchful and ready for all emergencies. Neither threats nor blandishments, from whatever quarter they may come, will persuade this country either to curtail its efforts to make itself strong or to yield to force one inch of democratic right or territory. I read to-day in the "Times" a message from its Rome correspondent according to which it seems that in Italy a democracy is only regarded as safe, from the dictators' point of view, when it is depressed. Then let us make it abundantly clear, on the Third Reading stage of this Bill, that this democracy is not depressed, but is ready for all eventualities.
The very resolution of our people, however, calls for complementary measures from this House. As has been said, our people have made great sacrifices and, I believe, are ready to make more sacrifices, of property and of leisure, but in return they ask of Parliament and the Government for two or three simple but nevertheless binding assurances. The first is that the money voted under these loans shall be wisely, efficiently and effectively spent. There has been a long Debate on that topic, and I shall not develop it now. I am more concerned about a second assurance for which, I believe the people ask to-day, especially the working people. I am a little concerned to know whether you, Sir Dennis, will regard it as being in order, but the second assurance for which the people ask is that the orders which flow from this Bill when it becomes an Act shall be spread as widely as possible over the country, so that the advantages of work and wages, and therefore of good living, shall be enjoyed by the largest possible number of workpeople and their families.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point, but he must not carry it further.

Mr. Stewart: Perhaps you would agree that it would be relevant to make a brief reference to the Statement upon Defence which is so closely related to this Debate. In that Statement it is made plain that in the case of the Air Ministry

the principle of the spreading of work has been accepted. It is stated in language which no one can misunderstand. It says that it was:
Decided that part of the additional volume of orders should be placed with manufacturers having capacity which would be of value in aircraft production and who controlled large bodies of skilled labour.
And this is the part to which I wish to direct attention:
Accordingly the aircraft industry was required to sub-contract with such firms a large proportion of the orders received.
The Advisory Panel upon rearmament which was appointed by the Prime Minister for the express purpose of facilitating this great programme reported upon this same matter at the beginning of last month. They said what is apparent to all of us who keep in touch with the country, namely, that there are great industrial resources now untapped. The Service Departments are calling for the provision of fresh arms, and in this report of the experts is shown a course which might well be taken. They say:
The Panel holds the view that there may still be untapped resources in industry which could and should be utilised on the same basis of voluntary co-operation as has hitherto obtained.
Upon that I should like to ask a question. The Panel is at present directing its attention to this question and is making a comprehensive approach to organised industry for its assistance in discovering ways in which performance could be improved or progress expedited.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go into details of that sort now. Many of the matters which are dealt with in the White Paper would have been perfectly in order upon the Money Resolution preceding the introduction of the Bill and upon the Second Reading, but they are not matters which can be gone into on the Third Reading. The Debate must be confined to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: Of course, I submit to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and will conclude my observations upon that point. If the country is to maintain and increase its determination to have a full implementation of this programme I submit that we must endeavour to secure the personal loyalty of the citizens, and that that personal loyalty would be better spread and be more apparent if it can be


proved to the country that not this section or that in England or in Scotland but as many sections as possible are sharing in the benefits of the arms programme. Having made that plea to the right hon. Gentleman I conclude with the hope that that assurance may be given. I understand the Government are ready to give it. I put forward the request to-day in the hope that full satisfaction may be given to it.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I have one or two observations to make upon the Third Reading of this Bill, and should probably have had a few more were it not for the fact that I realise that most of them would be out of order. Although my right hon. Friend said that we on these benches are not going to divide against the Bill we cannot congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer for while we realise the inevitability of the increase from £400,000,000 to £800,000,000 in the expenditure for defence, we are seriously disturbed at what may be the ultimate effects upon the welfare of our population. I am afraid that this increase, and the probable further increases later, may mean, as has happened abroad, that it will be a case of guns before butter; and however much we may be concerned to defend our country's interest and to provide the money for the defence of our country against foreign aggressors I do not think that any hon. Member, in whatever part of the House he may sit, can look upon this heavy burden with anything but increasing anxiety, as the money will be found not only from the pockets of the direct taxpayers but from those of the indirect taxpayers, including a large number of working-class people whose own budget is at the present time sadly shrunken.
I also fear that the raising of this money may affect our industries. Obviously, the Chancellor has to find the money by either short-term or long-term borrowing, and from many quarters he has been advised to find a good deal of it by way of short-term loans. I shall not ask the Chancellor what proportion of this £800,000,000 will be found by short-term bills and what part by long-term loans, but I should like him to say whether he anticipates that the floating of these loans will have an effect upon the interest rates of money. It has been part of the Government's policy to keep

money cheap, and many economists who have studied this matter fear that money rates may rise and throw upon both direct and indirect taxpayers an added burden.
Of course it would be out of order at this stage to resume the discussions which we have had on other stages about the profits in the arms industry, and I will content myself with this general remark, that the arguments from this side of the House in those Debates have not been answered to our full satisfaction, nor to the satisfaction of many hon. Members opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to recognise the assistance which hon. Members on these benches have given him in all stages of this Bill, and the House is bound also to recognise that we on these benches are just as patriotic and just as ready to defend the legitimate interests of our country as hon. Members opposite, but nevertheless we hope in the near future to see some different policy which will reduce the burden being placed upon the people by this Bill which we are discussing to-day for the last time in this House.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the fact that certain Members will persist in saying that there is unanimity on this matter among all parties. My hon. Friends and I have made it perfectly plain at an earlier stage that that is not the case. Because of our opposition to this proposal we challenged a Division, and were then asked to stand, and did not go into the Lobby because of the Ruling from the Chair, but the fact remains that the Independent Labour party and other Members in this House have throughout been in opposition to the proposals of the Government with regard to this rearmament programme and this Measure—my Independent Labour party colleagues and I, the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Wilson), the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee), I think the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and others. I want also to make it plain that while we are a small party in this House there is in the country a very big volume of opinion—I quite admit a minority opinion, but it is the opinion of millions of people, the Peace Pledge Union and other parties—which is in agreement with us in our opposition to this programme.
I note that one speaker said in referring to this additional £400,000,000 loan that it would consist of so much of the savings of the people. That really is not so. The loan will produce additional inflation to the extent of £400,000,000. Instead of taxpayers being called upon to pay directly, it will be spread over the whole community and taken out of the whole community, because an additional £400,000,000 of credit will be taken out of the banks. It will not be the case that Treasury notes to the value of £400,000,000 will be handed over, but additional credit will be created by the banking community based on the securities given to them by their various customers. The money represented by those securities will be continuing in the various industries as before, but there will be £400,000,000 additional pounds which will have been created by the bankers, and the effect of this will be seen in the rising prices of various commodities. Therefore, through rising prices, the general public will have to pay for this £400,000,000. I know that these financial operations are very mysterious in their working and I do not intend to pursue this matter.
My colleagues and I are opposed to the Bill. We shall not challenge a Division because we have already tried to do that and were refused a Division. We want to put on record that we are opposed to the whole policy of the Government in this respect. We think that it is a disastrous policy and will not bring security to the nation. All the expenditure from 1914 to 1918 did not bring security, and here we are at it again, in another race of armaments. Only by changing the policy would there be a prospect of world peace and something being gained. Instead of setting ourselves to arm for the purpose of fighting another nation at some future date we should use the whole resources of the nation in a great fight against poverty, and we should make an appeal to other nations to join in such an attack upon poverty, in which the whole resources of the British Commonwealth would be at our disposal for a united effort to banish poverty from the world. On the Second Reading Debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said that all parties were agreed in this matter; I hope that I have made it plain that there are

parties and millions of people in this country in opposition to the policy of the Government and that if they had the power they would refuse to allow this Measure to pass.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member's arguments but I would congratulate him in making a speech which was hardly completely in order. I rise not to make a speech but to make a correction in the speech which I made upon the Second Reading and which was certainly in order then. You, Sir Dennis, were in the Chair. I am not certain whether it is now in order to refer to this matter because I understand that the limits of Debate are very much narrower. I was talking on the Second Reading about value for money and I stated, subject to correction, that the price of various articles was sometimes fixed according to the price of the firm with the least efficiency, and that the price that the most efficient firm received therefore was higher than it would otherwise have been if the tenders had been spread over three or four firms. I am glad that I have been informed that I was quite inaccurate in making that statement and that in point of fact, nothing more than a percentage profit is paid to any firm, although that percentage may vary with its turnover. I should hate to make an inaccurate statement in the House, and I am glad to have been allowed to take this opportunity to try to put it right.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no hesitation whatever in reassuring the hon. Member because the House is always indulgent in giving an hon. Member opportunity to correct a mis-statement he has made. But his remarks were not in order as a matter of debate on this Third Reading. I permitted him to make his correction, and he has done it with commendable brevity.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: Although we cannot go into details to-day of how the money will be used which we are authorising by the Bill, we are surely entitled to ask one or two questions. Upon the Second Reading and on the Committee stage I tried to find out how the Government intended to deal with the allocation of the money and to-day I am asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give some information to


the House as to how the matter will be dealt with. I was told that in various speeches he had given certain directions. I am now asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he comes to reply on this Debate he should give some indication of what the Government intends to do on this all-important matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am afraid that it would be out of order for the hon. Member to put such questions on the Third Reading of the Bill. I have already heard that Ruling given from the Chair. Moreover, it would be out of order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give any reply to the questions which the hon: Member is proposing to ask.

Mr. Tinker: The Bill asks the House to grant an additional £400,000,000, and I think that hon. Members are entitled on the Third Reading of the Bill, before our final assent is given, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a further explanation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is wrong. The Bill authorises the borrowing of money and we cannot now discuss how that money will be spent. Those matters were relevant to the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Tinker: This money will be given to the various Services, and the very fact that it is for defence means that the Services will have some of the money. Are we not entitled to ask, for instance, questions about the allocation of this money to air-raid precautions? The points that arise in one's mind are the allocation of the money in the preparation of trenches and shelters and whether that work would be given to private firms or to municipalities and, if so, how the allocation of the money would be arranged.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that we cannot discuss how this money is to be spent. The Bill is merely for an extension of this service, and other services may be added. We cannot go into that matter now.

Mr. Tinker: It is difficult to go against your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, and, that being so, I will conclude my remarks.

5.8 p.m.

Captain Cazalet: I hope to keep in order and to confine my remarks to a very few minutes. In the initial stages of the Bill a stranger listening to our Debates, after he had heard the panegyrics, would have received a surprise to find that it was a Bill to vote £800,000,000 for the purposes of rearmament and not for any constructive social purpose; merely for making implements of war. I think it was due to the intense relief which a great many Members felt that they accorded a welcome to the Bill and to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicating the possibility that there would be no appreciable increase in taxation this year, rather than to the actual proposals of the Bill. We are inclined to forget, grateful as we may be that no additional or appreciable taxation will be imposed this year, that during the next 30 years the Bill may well mean an increase of about £200,000,000 a year upon the burdens of the taxpayers of this country. The actual amount that we are spending on armaments must be nearer to £2,000,000,000 than to £1,500,000,000. That figure is the criterion of the national effort.
It is curious to remember that only eight years ago Members of every party were vying with each other on the platforms of the country as to how little they had spent on the various defence services. Now almost every party is rivalling the others in encouraging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend more money on rearmaments of one kind or another. Two things seem clear. In this race of expenditure on armaments we shall be able to last longer than any other country in Europe, and if we all continue indefinitely it must mean universal bankruptcy. In the moment of satisfaction that we are becoming safer and stronger we may forget the permanent burden that we are putting upon the shoulders of the people of this country, and that in the long run must have an effect upon the social services and upon the standard of life of the mass of the people. We may be inclined to forget also the insane folly of a world devoting vast sums of money and time and thought to works of destruction.
Much was said in the initial stages of the Bill upon the subject of profiteering, and I would like to make one short observation on that subject. We cannot go into individual cases of profiteering,


but the matter formed the subject of many speeches and of practically the whole of one Government reply. I hope I may be allowed to make one remark upon it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid it would be out of order to do so, as there is nothing about it in the Bill.

Captain Cazalet: We are all agreed that cases of profiteering are to be condemned, but to make general assertions of large-scale profiteering to-day is inaccurate and is damaging in the impression that it creates in this country and abroad.

Mr. Tinkers: All that I asked was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make a statement on that subject disputing such assertions or otherwise, but Mr. Deputy-Speaker would not let me get any further with my request.

Captain Cazalet: I believe that a general accusation of profiteering is not accurate. I will curtail my observations on this point, merely adding that it is all very well to argue against excessive profits but the main consideration is whether by the use of this money we are getting goods produced of the right standard. I believe that the answer is in the affirmative. Lastly, are those goods being produced under reasonable conditions of labour? I believe that the answer to that question is also in the affirmative. Never have we had a period in which there has been so much peace in industry, which shows that the trade unions are doing their work. I believe that they also——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I allowed the hon. and gallant Member to make one short remark, but he now appears to be exceeding that limit.

Captain Cazalet: It is very difficult to go into one or two of the things that I wanted to say. Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in conclusion, that I believe the Bill is an indication of the fact that this country is growing in strength and importance every day and that we are beginning once again to wield in world affairs an influence which we never ought to have lost. I believe that the day is not far distant when we shall suddenly find ourselves playing a role which will surprise our neighbours almost as much as it may surprise ourselves.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I desire, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to make a personal statement in correction of a statement I made when I spoke a few minutes ago. I referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). My reference was intended to be to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and my confusion arose from the fact that the two right hon. Gentlemen have the same name. I think it is only fair to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney that I should make this correction.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I find myself in a rather difficult predicament, for most of the matters referred to by previous speakers to which one would have liked to allude have been ruled out of order, and, although those hon. Members have got their shot in first, it would be a breach of the Rules of the House to attempt to deal with the subjects they have raised. There are, however, one or two points which have not yet been mentioned, and there are, perhaps, one or two hurdles that have not yet brought a horse down. I should like to find out whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in order in replying to those points.
The first is that, when the figure of £400,000,000 was originally proposed, we understood that that amount was to be raised by loan out of a total expenditure of £1,500,000,000 or thereabouts. The borrowing power is now being raised to £800,000,000, but, so far, I have not heard the total sum out of which that £800,000,000 is to be raised by loan. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) who spoke of the total expenditure as being in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000,000. If that is to be the total expenditure, it would mean that, of the additional £500,000,000, £400,000,000 is to be raised by loan, and only £100,000,000 is to be raised by revenue. But, whether that estimate is correct or not, I do not think any figures have been given in the course of these Debates to show us exactly what proportion it is now proposed to raise by loan. Of the original total expenditure, 262/3 per cent. was to be raised by loan. What is the total sum of which this £800,000,000 is a fraction?


Can we know whether the ratio of 262/3 per cent. is still to be preserved, or whether that percentage is to be considerably enlarged?
The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham asked what we were getting for this money. I thought that what was said by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) represented what we were supposed to get for the money. He suggested that this money is to be provided in order that there shall be no repetition of Munich. I thought at the time that he was a supporter of Munich, but perhaps he has learned wisdom in the last few weeks, and has found that the learning of wisdom is an expensive process. I take it that this defence loan is supposed to be a means of giving us security, but does anyone really believe it is going to give us security? I recollect saying a few months ago, in one of these Debates, that the world at the present time reminded me of a scene in a Wild West saloon, where men from the wide open spaces were sitting playing poker, with a gun on each hip, and waiting for the opportunity to seize the jackpot by a display of their skill with the six-shooter. Does anyone believe that the expenditure of this money to-day is going to do anything but encourage other people to raise their loans?
Really, we are playing poker. We put up £1,500,000,000 to back our hand, and we hoped that that would persuade other people that our hand was so strong that they could not go on. We are now putting in something else. Is there any indication anywhere in the world that this is bringing anyone to their senses? As I see it, it is getting us nearer to the stage when these guns will be drawn. I read speeches by the dictators in which they allude to our Debates on this matter, not as evidence of our desire for peace, of our desire to see that freedom shall be preserved in the world, but as evidence that we intend to use these arms provocatively. I venture to suggest—I hope I may be in order in making this one point, beyond which I will not go—that we may yet realise that the display of force will never bring peace, that, if we want peace, we shall have to show a willingness to employ the means of reason. I know that, in the world as it is at present, this is difficult, but I see no hope that from the expenditure of this money

we shall get peace. We shall have to put this money in, but it is not the end.
It seemed to me that the speech of the Prime Minister was the most appalling speech that any Prime Minister could have made, when he said that, when we have paid for these armaments by loan, we shall then have to pay for their maintenance by loan. I wonder what would have been said of him, when he was Lord Mayor of Birmingham, if he had appeared at a Ministry of Health inquiry into a proposal to raise a loan for some capital project in his city, and had said, "When we have raised this money out of loan, and built this swimming bath" or whatever social improvement it might have been, "we also propose to raise the annual deficit by loan." I wonder what the Prime Minister would have said, when he was Minister of Health, to any municipality that submitted to him such a proposal. I venture to say he would have regarded that as the first ground for refusing his sanction to the loan.
It is, of course, in the state of the world to-day, impossible to divide against this Measure, but I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider how far it is possible to assure us or any other people that we are getting security. Are we getting more than a gambler's chance that we may be able to bluff somebody else who is playing in the same game? No one would have believed seven years ago that it was within the financial capacity of the country to raise anything like this sum of money for any purpose at all, and for any of the purposes that make for the regeneration of the world we should still be told that it was impossible. I see the voting of this money with a heavy heart, because I believe that, not merely is it not going to produce any good, but that it may very well be productive of great suffering in the world.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Denman: I want merely to pursue one question, namely, the first question raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), relating to the proportion between the money to be borrowed and the money to be raised by revenue in any one year. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) referred to the matter during the earlier stages of the Bill, but he did not receive a reply at the time, and, indeed, he did not expect one. It seems to me to be


important that the public should know what is in the mind of the Government. The old principle of our finance was perfectly clear. It was that any expenditure likely to be annual should be met out of revenue, and, indeed, the application of the principle went further than that, because a great deal of expenditure that was obviously capital expenditure was met out of annual revenue. My right hon. Friend will remember the bitterness of the controversy in pre-War days over the Naval Loans Bill, when quite a modest demand was made for power to borrow for what nowadays we should certainly regard as capital expenditure.
Are we, in this Bill, deliberately making a fresh departure? Are we contemplating borrowing for an expenditure which is likely to recur? I ask the question in no hostile sense; I ask it only because I believe we ought to know what we intend to do in this matter. It is regrettable if the financial conditions are such, and the world position is such, that we are compelled to do this, but let us know it and recognise that we are likely to be able to carry on that process quite as long as any other country. We must recognise that borrowing on such a scale is, quite frankly, war finance—that, financially speaking, we are in a condition of war. That fact, apart from all others, must, on financial grounds alone, make us desire all the more urgently the coming of a time when we may be able to return to the methods of peace and once more revert to financial rectitude.

5.28 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I think the time has come when the House will be ready for me to make a short reply to the Debate, and I will endeavour to deal with some of the points that have been raised so far as those points have been found on analysis to be legitimate points with which to deal now. I have a good deal of sympathy with some of my hon. Friends who have raised points which I think were of very great substance and importance, but still we must keep to the Rules. When we come to the Third Reading of the Bill, we have to see what the Bill contains, and if by any chance we go outside that, we must expect to be pulled inside it again by the authority of the Chair, which

we all accept. Even so, there must be some matters that are in order on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I should like to make some remarks about two or three of them.
In the first place, I would remind the House that, as has been pointed out from the Chair, this is not a Bill which spends any money at all, but a Bill which gives authority under which, without further request for power, money may be borrowed to be devoted to a limited list of purposes which are defined in this Bill and in the original Act. It is a facultative Bill. Even so, we are not seeking to get from Parliament a blank authority which enables us, even for these defence purposes, to go and spend the money without further challenge. As the House knows—and it is a very important House of Commons point—we provide in our legislation that we have to put down in the Estimates what is the particular head of the Estimates under which we seek to use any portion of this borrowed money, and, therefore, the matter does come up for consideration by the House, as indeed it ought, on each occasion.
I have been asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and also by my hon. Friend on this side how far I thought the powers we were taking here were powers to raise and use money for what might be called capital purposes and how far it might be supposed to be an authority to use borrowed money for meeting recurring annual charges. The hon. Member opposite, in that connection, invited me to go into a calculation based on the Rule of Three. It was quite a legitimate and natural sort of question. He said, in effect, that we started with a figure of £1,500,000,000, out of which £400,000,000 might be borrowed. We were now asking for powers to borrow £800,000,000 and what was the equivalent now of the original figure of £1,500,000,000? The original figure was divided in the ratio £400,000,000 from loan and £1,100,000,000 from revenue. Ought we therefore to say that the defence expenditure we have to face is to be divided in that proportion as between capital expenditure and non-capital expenditure? That would be a misconception.
We never conceived that this rearmament expenditure should be regarded as an expenditure eleven-fifteenths of which


represented the total of recurrent expenditure and a mere four-fifteenths was the capital expenditure. The reason for that division of the £1,500,000,000—we know now that that figure is insufficient—was that it was thought that, by putting a great strain upon ourselves no doubt, we could raise £1,100,000,000 out of taxation and that if so we ought to do it; but we thought it would be putting more of a strain on the country than was justified in the then circumstances to ask for the other £400,000,000 to come out of taxation. There was never any conscious attempt to apportion the outlay as between capital and non-capital expenditure in that proportion. On the contrary. That basis left us in this situation—and I think it is the best situation to be in—that we are throwing a very considerable part of the capital expenditure on revenue and there is no doubt that that is a wise and prudent thing to do.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has said is quite just. What were called classical principles in the days before the War are very good principles to-day. We have to remember that there are two different senses in which you may describe expenditure as being in the nature of capital. In one sense a thing is in the nature of capital expenditure if you hope to have to incur it only once or at distant intervals of time. But in another and a more fruitful sense, capital expenditure is the outlay of money upon an object which will bring back as a return year by year that which enables you in due course to replace the thing when it has gone. That, unfortunately, is not the character of armaments expenditure. Whatever may be the difficulties, I hope nobody will ever find me pretending that one is the same as the other. It is not. We may attempt to justify the apportionment of certain expenditure to be met by borrowing, and it can be justified, I believe, in the circumstances, but that does not mean that we are spending our money on something that will, so to speak, earn its keep and in a way which conforms to the rules for borrowing in the strict and classical sense. That justification can never exist in regard to such expenditure as this. I believe a great many people in the House will agree with me about this and will be glad to hear it stated from this Box. Then it was asked on what principle have we asked for

another £400,000,000? Is it merely the old principle of saying, "Think of a number, then double it "? It is not quite that, because that would involve, according to the nursery formula, "taking away the number you first thought of." I do not know that we can do that. The real reason is something like this, and I have already explained it in Committee of Ways and Means. I do not find it possible to state a figure which can be substituted for the original £1,500,000,000. It is quite clear that it will be a figure substantially more. I have never thought that we can work out theoretically a precise relation between the taxation figure and the borrowing figure. We are, I believe, justified in the circumstances of this expenditure in getting a substantial contribution from loan. It would not be reasonable, or possible, to put on the people of this country, within the limits of a single 12 months, the whole of the defence expenditure for next year. The amount we raise by taxation for purposes of defence may not be the same in one year and another, but you would not ordinarily expect the figure to alter, except in time of war, at a very rapid rate. But in fact we are this year raising out of the revenue for defence purposes twice as much as we raised in 1934. We have doubled the amount we are putting on the taxpayers, and that shows that we are not attempting to shovel our responsibilities on to posterity. But it is not a practical proposition to say that the whole of this sum simply must be raised by taxation, and you are bound to turn to the other alternative of loan. I shall not admit that the amount we are seeking to get out of loan exceeds what can be classified as a non-recurrent charge.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us a formula then for the guidance of future Chancellors as to how he arrives at the figure that he decides should come from revenue and the proportion that should be obtained by way of loan?

Sir J. Simon: Is this with reference to the £580,000,000?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes or any defence expenditure in any other year.

Sir J. Simon: I do not think I can go over it again, even if it were in order. As to the £400,000,000 that is in order


and I will say a word about it. It may be said that the £400,000,000 is not enough for one purpose and that it is too much for another—that we are between two stools, but I think the House of Commons will probably support the view I take. I do not think it would be right or prudent to ask at present for a greatly swollen sum beyond the £400,000,000. I sincerely hope things will take such a turn that it will not be needed. I cannot see any public advantage from making an extravagant claim which may not be necessary, and I should have thought that the House of Commons would prefer that whoever was responsible would have to come back and ask for further help rather than that he should ask for a blank cheque and go away rubbing his hands, knowing that he had an almost unlimited amount at his disposal without the need for future authority. I do not, of course, say that there is any particular virtue about the figure of £400,000,000, or against, for example, £350,000,000 or £450,000,000. But I thought there was a certain advantage in repeating the same figure as before, if only to mark the fact that we were not seeking exactly the amount we needed but were making provision for an adequate amount in any circumstances. That is broadly why the Bill contains the figure of £400,000,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) asked a question about the report of the industrial advisory panel which was communicated to the House on 2nd February, and in particular with regard to the references about the panel making further inquiry for the purposes they mentioned. No further report has been made on that subject yet—after all, the report was made only last month— and we shall have to wait a little longer.
I was asked whether I thought the raising of this large extra sum of money was likely to have serious economic effects on the finance and trade of the country. I would point out again that what this Bill does is to give authority. It is not operative. As regards the original authority, the first £400,000,000, we have been very careful not to march into the money market with this authority and get the money anyhow. This is a much more delicate matter than that. It is to the

interest of the country that these things should be handled with the greatest possible skill. I appreciate the technical accuracy of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to short-term Bills and longer-dated issues, but he will not expect me to make a statement on that now. Everything depends on how it is done.
This great effort to find the resources which we need for this purpose will be carried through without crippling industry, without prejudicing the steady building up of the reserves and the savings which, after all, are the fund out of which this money must be got. I believe that that can be done, and will be done, without prejudicing the prospects of British industry. It is certainly the case, since the announcement I made a few weeks ago, that the indications have been favourable. I believe they show that we can shoulder this burden, and that we will shoulder it. I appreciate that this Bill is not receiving the unanimous support of the House. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was justified in calling attention to that, and in correcting any previous mis-statements from this Box. Subject to that, I think it is a satisfactory thing, in what is a very difficult world, to find to what a very large extent it has been recognised, both inside and outside the House, that this is a thing we must do, and that this is the way to do it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), in the course of his speech, at the beginning, repudiated theoretical considerations and calculations, and took up the attitude of the practical man who learns from experience. In this matter I am very glad to know that everybody is learning from experience, because I recall that when the original Defence Loans Bill was presented to this House in 1937 the Opposition divided the House at every single stage, including the Ways and Means Resolution.

Mr. Bellenger: There was no Munich then to guide us.

Sir J. Simon: I thought the hon. Gentleman said, "No leader." We all know now, and speaking as one with a great burden on my shoulders, I am most genuinely obliged to hon. Members of this House who have considered these most important proposals so fairly, and


who, while reserving their own views— and their rights of criticism and rebuke— at the same time accept, subject to the views of the hon. Gentleman and his friends below the Gangway, the necessity for these proposals. I ask that this Bill should now be read the Third time.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1938.

CLASS III.

BROADMOOR CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the expenses of the maintenance of criminal lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department just one question. He knows that Broadmoor Criminal Asylum is to be transferred in due course to the Board of Control. We on this side of the Committee always welcome improvements in wages and conditions of the prison staff, but we would like to know whether, when the arrangement was made with regard to the wages and conditions of these employés at Broadmoor, the Home Office bore in mind the transfer of Broadmoor to the Board of Control in due course.

5.49 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): Yes, Sir, we certainly did. The changes in the wages are due to an arbitration which took place a short time age. I understand that there are certain other questions beside salary questions which are at present being discussed with the representative organisation, and the transfer to the Board of Control will make no difference to these discussions.

PRISONS, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Prison Commissioners and of the Prisons in England and Wales.

Sir S. Hoare: The reason for this Vote is the same as that for the Broadmoor Vote. An arbitration, as I said just now, took place, and the result was to propose that rises of a minimum of 5s. a week should take place at once among practically all the prison staffs. That is the origin of this Vote, and it is the result of the arbitration.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has been very brief in introducing this Supplementary Estimate; and although I do not intend to be critical I should like to put a few questions on these several items. It will be noticed that the Supplementary Estimate is not exclusively due to an advance of wages for the prison staff. On page 16 it says that the "Site for new women's prison and Borstal institution. Purchase of approximately 155 acres of land at an estimated cost of £57,500, including Stamp Duty," and so forth. The statement makes clear that no expenditure is to be incurred this year, but the object of the token provision we are now discussing is to secure Parliamentary approval for this transaction. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is at last proposing to start his campaign of building new prisons. In fact, I think we might take that for granted. Will he tell us, first of all, where this proposed new building is to be situated? Then, it will be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us when the building is likely to be completed, because it is likely to mean such a lot in connection with prison reform which he has so much at heart. What type of training is to be given in this new Borstal institution? It is not proper for me to refer to the proceedings in Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, but I understand that the Home Office have in view some special training in this new Borstal institution with which we are dealing this afternoon.
The Prison Commissioners in their report deal very extensively with proposed


new forms of treatment for these delinquents, and perhaps therefore the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us on that point? What is to become of the Borstal at Aylesbury? I do not know the reason for this change of location, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. We are proposing to deal here with a group of people who, we understand, are persons to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred in what, I think, must be regarded as one of his most famous speeches. He delivered at Geneva some time ago another speech which made him famous. [Hon. Members: "Order."] I must not touch upon Geneva this afternoon, but the next speech which helped to make him famous was one on prison reform, and this afternoon we come to the first instalment of the proposals he made then.
It is proposed to build a new prison for that difficult group of inebriate women who are now housed at Holloway. I am glad that there is one Lady Member of the House in her place this afternoon when we are discussing this very important problem. What is it intended to do in dealing with this very stubborn group who are constantly in and out of Holloway? Are they to be submitted to some new form of treatment? Are they to have more medical attention or are we to understand that they will be called upon to do some physical work on this 155 acres which is to be purchased? Indeed, they are a difficult problem; and anyone who cares to read the report of the Prison Commissioners on the results of drunkenness and the consequent delirium tremens will get an insight into the work of the Home Office and the Prison Commission. If it were in order, I would say a word or two this afternoon upon the effects of strong drink and its connection with crime, but the right hon. Gentleman always becomes alarmed if I start on a venture of that kind. He will forgive me at any rate asking whether we are to expect a change in the treatment of this group of women. It must be remembered that 24 per cent. of the committals to prison in respect of women are due to strong drink; they violate most of the laws in relation to intoxicating liquor, and the right hon. Gentleman emphasised that point in the second famous speech to which I have already referred.
The Committee are under a slight disadvantage this afternoon in dealing with this Supplementary Estimate because the Prison Commissioners' Report, which would probably tell us a little more in regard to the details of these institutions and what it is proposed to do in them in future, has not yet been issued for the year 1937. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman not to allow a state of affairs to continue such as we have here by reason of the fact that it was as late as February, 1938, that the Prison Commissioners' Report for 1936 was issued. The Committee are under a disadvantage because the Prison Commissioners as a rule, and their medical staff in particular, give guidance to the public as to the good work which they are attempting to do. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to reply to these questions, and I am sure in so doing that he will not to-day dwell on that other famous speech on another subject which he delivered at Geneva.

5.58 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I give a short statement before the further discussion upon what is covered by this token Vote for the new women's prison. When I rose to make a statement earlier I was dealing with the salaries question, an item which came also on the White Paper. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) for his reference to, I think, three of my speeches. I am much obliged to him, and I am glad to think that anybody of that bench should pay so great attention to my humble efforts. This Vote covers some very important proposals, and I would ask the attention of the Committee for a moment or two while I explain them to hon. Members. Hon. Members will remember that when I was introducing the Home Office Vote in the Summer I explained to them what I then described as our housing programme for prisons. Our housing programme, let me repeat it to hon. Members, is as follows: That we build a new women's prison that will take the women prisoners from Holloway and possibly from some of the other women's prisons; and we then intend to use Holloway and also Aylesbury for men prisoners. As a result, we hope that we shall be able to do what the Prison Commissioners and a good many other people


have wished to do for several years, namely, to shut Pentonville as a prison. We have already made some progress in this direction. We have been in active negotiation with the London County Council for the disposal of the Pentonville site for a housing scheme. The negotiations have reached an advanced point and I see no reason why they should not be successfully terminated. The effect then will be that Pentonville will be pulled down and the housing scheme will occupy the site. The women will go from Holloway to the new prison and the men from Pentonville to Holloway and Aylesbury.
This Vote covers the initial step in this housing programme, the provision of accommodation for the women prisoners who are to be moved from Holloway. Until we carry out this stage we cannot go any further with the Pentonville scheme and the Aylesbury scheme. The first move is the move for the new prison for women. Accordingly, during recent months we have been busy in attempting to find a suitable site for the new prison and in making our plans for the kind of institutions that we want to put upon the new site. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that, here again, our negotiations have gone far. I think I can say that we have now got a site. I would rather not disclose the exact details about the site, as the transfer has not actually been signed, sealed and delivered, but I can tell hon. Members that it will be near London. It is essential that it should be near London, because most of the women prisoners come from London and the neighbourhood. It will be a country site, big enough to hold two institutions, quite distinct institutions, first, the prison which will take the place of Holloway, and, secondly, the girls' Borstal institution, which is to take the place of the institution at Aylesbury which is at present the girls' Borstal. Hon. Members may ask whether it would not be better to have two separate sites for these two institutions, but I think I can satisfy them that the site will be big enough to have these two institutions upon it quite distinct the one from the other.
Let me give the Committee the general outline of the kind of institutions which we wish to put upon the site. First, we are anxious that the site for the institutions should look as little like the old

type of prison, in the manner of Holloway, as we can possibly make it. Accordingly, it is proposed to enclose the site, not by high walls, like the wall at Holloway, but by a sunk wall which will project some four feet above the ground level. The enclosed site will then be divided into two portions, one for the prison and one for the Borstal institution. We intend to make considerable use of screens of trees, hedges and planting of various kinds, in order to avoid the grim appearance of the early nineteenth century prisons, which we know so well, from one end of the country to the other.
I have said that the site is near London. As regards the prison for women it is proposed to erect a number of semi-detached houses, each of which will contain 25 women. Hon. Members will see at once the advantage of that proposal over a great institution like Holloway, where several hundred women are all gathered together, if not under the same roof at any rate in the same building. For many purposes these houses will be self-contained. Each will have a matron and a complete kitchen equipment. For central use there will be a medical unit, a chapel, work-rooms, recreational and educational facilities and a library. Very important will be the gardens and farming on a small scale. I am sure hon. Members must have noticed that even at Holloway a little garden is a great advantage to a women's prison. On the larger site, with a country atmosphere, we can develop to a much greater degree this very useful form of training in the women's prison. The total accommodation will be from 400 to 450. At present in Holloway there are about 350 prisoners. This accommodation in the new prison will give us room for some of the small number of women prisoners who are at present dotted about in existing prisons. It is impossible for me to tell the hon. Member for Westhoughton when the new prison will be completed. These things must take time, but we are anxious to see the buildings completed as soon as we can make the arrangements, and from my own point of view the sooner the better, particularly as this is the first move in the new housing campaign, and without this dispersal we cannot make the corresponding moves in the other parts of the housing scheme.
I pass from the prison to the Borstal institution. The Borstal institution for


girls at Aylesbury will be transferred to this site. The new institution will be generally on the lines of other Borstal institutions, such as the Hollesley Bay institution, the details of which I gave a few months ago. The system of small houses in which the girls will be in comparatively small numbers, where they will be able to live very much their own lives and do their own work in small parties, will be adopted. The last time we discussed this question hon. Members generally agreed that to put boys and girls in these small houses is a much better way of dealing with them than to put them in some great central institution. There will be complete segregation of the girls in the Borstal institution from the women in the prison. Although the site will be the same, it is a very big site, and the girls and the women will be kept separate. They will have separate governors and separate staffs, with the possible exception of the chaplain and the doctors. Otherwise there will be a complete separate system for the two institutions.
A question was put to me by the hon. Member opposite regarding that very difficult class of woman prisoner, the habitual inebriate. Anyone who has been to Holloway must have meen depressed at the number of old women who come in week after week, with no apparent advantage to themselves and to the great disadvantage of prison life. Obviously, it makes it much more difficult to organise successfully the life of a prison upon any reasonable system of training when it may be that one-third or one-half of the prisoners come in on a Monday, go out, it may be, on a Friday and come back again on the following Monday. I have thought a great deal about this difficult class of woman prisoner, and perhaps the one feature that has done something to comfort me in dealing with them is the fact that their numbers are steadily decreasing. That is satisfactory. The younger women seem to have other and better interests than drinking large quantities of methylated spirits and Red Biddy over the week-end. Accordingly, the numbers are falling very quickly and substantially. None the less there is still a number of these women, and we have to deal with them. We intend to put them into some institution of their own. We do not intend to take them to the

new prison for women. We think that if we did they would once again be a great obstacle in the way of the kind of training that we wish to see started in the new prison. We think also that in an institution specially adapted to their needs we can deal with them much better than we could under the conditions in which we are now working.
I have tried to give the Committee a picture of the programme that is covered by this Token Vote of £10. It is a big, comprehensive picture, and it will take time to fill in all the details. It will be an integral part of the whole scheme of penal reform that we are discussing upstairs in connection with the Criminal Justice Bill. These are two essential sides of the same programme, two essential sides of our attempt to deal with these unfortunate people in a sensible way, in a way which is most likely to diminish crime and make it less likely that prisoners come back again to prison when they have served their sentence. Whilst no doubt hon. Members will wish to ask further questions and make criticisms on this and that detail, I hope they will approve generally of the objectives we have in view.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: The Committee will realise that this token Vote marks the beginning of a series of measures which the Home Secretary is undertaking in his great project of constructive penal reform. Although there may be some difference of opinion upon the details, and important details, there is no difference of opinion in the House or in the country in the confidence which everyone feels in the Home Secretary's insight, his humanity and wisdom, in the way he is planning this great reform. He has indicated tonight what is in his mind, and has relieved some of us from an anxiety we felt when we read the Supplementary Estimates, that it might be proposed that the same institution should house the women's Borstal and the women's new prison. I am glad to know that this is very far from this thought. Although the new estate is a large one, I think there is some reason for appealing to the Home Secretary to consider a separate site altogether for the women's Borstal. The name will attach to both institutions, and there will be a danger of a prison association clinging around the Borstal institution although it may be separate and


under separate government. One does not wish girls going to a Borstal institution to come out with even the slightest association with a prison site. I hope it is not too late for the Home Secretary to consider the possibility of a separate site, perhaps a few miles away, for girls who are sent to a Borstal institution. Of course the further away the better from the point of view of association, but if it is unfortunately inevitable to go on with planning them on the same site I hope they will be given different names. I think that is a very important point. It will make a great difference to the girls concerned if the institution has a different name.
I am delighted with the plan for cottage homes for girls in a Borstal institution. One of the defects of the older Borstal system has been the fact that a large number of Borstal boys, and to some extent girls, have been kept together in one institution. It is an unnatural life, and the transition to ordinary life after training is made much harder when the young person has been trained in one of these large groups. If they can receive their training in a group nearer to the family in size and in spirit the training itself would be much better, and the prospect when they go out into the world would be much brighter. In making this appeal to the Home Secretary I wish to say how heartily I approve of the scheme as a whole, and in that I am sure that I am not alone. I am sure that hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee wish the Home Secretary God-speed in his great work.

6.21 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I am sure we all welcome the statement of the Home Secretary this afternoon. We felt that we were advancing tremendously in penal reform. For my part, I was rather disappointed when he told us that negotiations for a site for the new prison had not been completed and that there is even a possibility they may fall through. I hope that is not the case. I could have wished that the Home Secretary would have been able to tell us not only of the completion of the negotiations but of the date when the new prison work would be commenced. Not only has the site not been settled, but the detailed plans have not yet been drawn up, and this reform is so urgent that every week and month of

delay means that some unfortunate woman is not benefiting fully from the new methods which have been prescribed by the most modern reformers. Those who know the work which is done at Holloway know that it is cramped because there is not sufficient room to institute this kind of home life. The new conception of prison reform is an ideal one, and I hope that not only will the women be housed in small villas, 25 to each, but that when we build the new prison for men the same methods will be used.
The results of these methods are astonishing. In Aylesbury, which is a prison for young offenders who are considered to be intractable, the result of this new treatment shows that 65 per cent. of these young offenders never return. In fact, on looking at the figures I am amazed to find that out of the total prison population women comprise only 7 per cent., in spite of the fact that we are numerically superior—there are 2,000,000 more women than men—but only 7 per cent. of the total prison population are women. I am not suggesting that this is because we are more moral. It is not sex which determines who shall be labelled as a criminal, and we must admit that very often men have more temptations, there is more urge for a man to steal because of his family responsibilities. It is rather remarkable also, on looking through the criminal statistics, to observe that immediately women have unemployment benefit the number of convictions for theft decreases.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member is now getting a little wide of the Vote.

Dr. Summerskill: I admit I am, but I am trying to prove that this reform is very urgent, so urgent that I am hoping the Home Secretary will expedite the building of the new prison. May I also remind him that not only have the numbers decreased but that we do not now have any fighting or screaming or any of the disturbances which were known in women's prisons? I have only one other thing I desire to say, and if the Home Secretary's illustrious ancestor, Elizabeth Fry, was here to-day she would approve of it. Will he consider in the new prison relaxing certain regulations, or will he consider relaxing them in Holloway today? There is one regulation which is


still observed, and that is that women must still be silent during recreation. I am not going to provoke anybody into saying how difficult it is for women to be silent, but it will be admitted that recreation is associated with leisure and relaxation. Can we regard it as a modern way of treating women prisoners to expect them to be silent during recreation, at a time when perhaps it might be a great relief to some over-burdened mind to have a little chat?
May I also ask the Home Secretary to allow women prisoners in the new prison to walk about during the recreation period, as young offenders do at Aylesbury and Borstal, in twos and threes instead of in single file, which I think dates from at least 100 years ago? My final point is with regard to recidivists, the inebriated ladies who go out on Friday night with a strict injunction to the governor to keep their room open until the Monday morning. Besides these inebriated ladies there are other recidivists, and I should like to know whether the Home Secretary intends to separate them. I hope he will be able to answer this question. Not only are the chronic old drunkards a bad influence on the newcomers but they nullify the effort which the staff makes to keep an atmosphere of hope and good cheer in our prisons, and I believe that this atmosphere is very necessary if we are to institute the most modern method of prison reform.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I want first to say a word on the increase in salary for the prison staff. I welcome it heartily. The part played by the prison officers is very difficult, and if prisoners are to be reformed it is very essential that we should get the right type of man as officer. You are not going to get the right type unless you can offer them conditions which are sufficiently attractive. I, therefore, welcome this increase. Like other hon. Members I welcome the new prison for women and the new Borstal, but I am really shocked to hear that the Home Secretary proposes that the two institutions should be on the same site. We have been told that there will be no communication between them, and that the only link between them will be the chaplain and the doctor; but the mere lack of communication is not anything like an adequate

separation. The two institutions ought to be in entirely different places, and I agree with the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) that they ought also to have different names. I think that the proximity of the girls' Borstal to the prison will have far worse effects on the girls than would be the case with a boys' Borstal near a prison. There is only one girls' Borstal, whereas there are 10 boys' Borstals. It is unfortunate that the one Borstal institution for girls should be placed close to what is likely to be the biggest women's prison in the country.
I think that girls are far more likely to be influenced by that rather intangible, but very important, thing which is generally called atmosphere. There are several differences between the population of the boys' Borstal and the girls' Borstal which ought to be taken seriously into consideration. Apart from the fact that, in general, the boys are a great deal tougher, the age of admission to the girls' Borstal is lower than that to the boys' Borstal, and on the average the girls also have a smaller criminal record. Moreover, I think it is true to say that Borstal girls are considerably more neurotic than the average Borstal boy. For instance, admissions at the age of 17 and under, in the case of boys, amount to only one-third of the entrants, whereas in the case of girls, they amount to one-half. With regard to the conviction record, two-thirds of the boys who go to Borstal have more than one previous conviction, whereas only one-half of the girls have previous convictions. The girls are younger and their criminal record is smaller. The emotional and neurotic instability of the girls is shown very clearly by the high incidence of "smashing up" that takes place in the Aylesbury Borstal institution. If hon. Members do not know what "smashing up" means, it is this, that when a prisoner gets into a sufficiently high state of emotional tension, when something has to be broken, he sees to it that it is prison property that he breaks and not himself, and he proceeds to demolish everything within reach. If that happens when the prisoner is locked in a cell every piece of furniture and the windows—everything that can be broken—is reduced to fragments. It is an emotional explosion produced by emotional tension. Perhaps it is very useful as a safety valve, but the snag is


that it is rather expensive, from the point of view of Government property, and therefore, cannot be encouraged.
This "smashing up" gives an indication either of neurotic conditions, or that something is wrong with the regime in the institution. If one compares the incidence of "smashing up" at the Aylesbury Borstal institution with other types of prison institutions, one finds that it is very much higher in the girls' Borstal. For instance, in men's and women's prisons, comparing the number of "smashings up" with the daily average population, I find that both in men's and in women's local prisons, the number is 3 per cent.; in boys' Borstals, where, of course, the conditions are not quite as strained as in prison, it falls as low as 1½ per cent.) but at Aylesbury, it jumps to the enormous figure of 10 per cent.; in other words, "smashings up" are nearly seven times as frequent in the girls' Borstal at Aylesbury as in the boys' Borstals throughout the country. I think that the Home Secretary ought to look into this great discrepancy. It suggests, first of all, that the average girl who goes to Borstal is far more neurotic than the average boy. If the girls who go to Borstal are younger, have a smaller criminal record and are more emotionally unstable than the boys who go to Borstal, I think these are very strong arguments against putting the girls' Borstal in proximity to the new women's prison. Of course, the "smashings up" may be due to the fact that there is something wrong with the regime at Aylesbury. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter and see why the incidence of "smashings up" is incomparably higher at Aylesbury than anywhere else.
What is the case for putting the Borstal institution and the prison on the same site? In the Report of the Prison Commissioners for 1937, economy is suggested as a reason. It is true that if there is a small penal institution, it is much more economical to base it administratively on a larger institution. For example, the Wakefield prison camp is based administratively on Wakefield prison, but the two institutions are many miles apart. Moreover, according to the Home Secretary, there is to be very little administrative liaison between the Borstal institution and the women's prison. If there is to be no common administration, apart

from the doctor and the chaplain, what is the point of putting the girls' institution and the women's prison together? Perhaps it is a question of stores and what may be termed central administration, but if Wakefield prison camp can be separated from Wakefield prison, there is no reason why the girls' Borstal should not be separated from the women's prison, while still retaining the hidden administrative link. How will economy be served by putting the girls' Borstal and the women's prison on the same site rather than by putting them on sites which are 5, 10 or 20 miles apart?
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of having one girls' Borstal institution for the whole of England, he should consider establishing more. Just as Wakefield prison camp is dependent upon Wakefield Prison, there is no reason why there should not be established a North Country Borstal for girls administratively dependent upon Manchester Prison. There is no reason why there should not be two, three or four girls' Borstals. I know that the problem of numbers arises, for the daily average population at Aylesbury last year was 128, and one cannot go on indefinitely subdividing a population of 128; but one of the essential factors of the Borstal system is that there should be classification and segregation. There can be no classification and segregation if there is only one Borstal institution. The different groups of girls may be put into different cottages, but contact cannot be prevented; and if there is any question of the worst corrupting those who are not as bad, it is bound to happen. As there are 10 Borstal institutions for boys, it is possible to make classification and segregation a reality, but if the Borstal girls, although their numbers may be small, are to be put into one Borstal institution, no matter how much there are cottage homes, it will not be possible to segregate them. I maintain that there can be no very great economy in placing this Borstal institution in close proximity to the women's prison, and there is a great deal to be said against it. I think there ought to be one or two Borstal institutions away from London.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. The right hon. Gentleman is piloting through Committee a Bill which will provide Howard houses. I do


not want him to make any too elaborate preparations for girls Borstal institutions until it is possible to see what is the effect of Howard houses on girls. It may be said that that will depend upon the courts, but that is not so, for once the courts have sentenced the girls, they will be at the tender mercies of the right hon. Gentleman, and he has full power to change the institutions and to transfer persons from one type of prison to another. I suggest that the authorities in charge of the Borstal institution will be far more likely to be good judges as to how a girl should be dealt with than the courts, which see the girls perhaps for one or two hours. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that as far as possible— I do not know how far it will be possible, for one does not know exactly what the Howard houses are going to be like— instead of making preparations to house the whole of the 120 or 140 Borstal girls, he should see whether they cannot be scattered about and taken away from the deadening effect which any institution is bound to have.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) has referred to institutionalisation. I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a book on women's prisons that was recently published—" They always come back," by Miss McCall. The author has had experience of Holloway and Aylesbury, and refers to the institutionalisation of girls in Aylesbury. Some of them have never lived outside an institution. Perhaps because of juvenile delinquency, they were taken into Home Office schools, and from there, they went to the Borstal institution at Aylesbury. As the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham said, institutionalisation makes it very difficult for them to adjust their lives to normal conditions afterwards. The more these girls are not put into Borstal institutions, but are put into Howard houses, the easier it will be for them to adjust their lives to normal conditions. Although in delinquency restraint may be necessary, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to aim at the minimum of restraint as the ideal.

6.45 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I find myself in full agreement with the last proposition of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and in general agreement with

most of what has been said in this discussion. Indeed, I think the hon. Member for Chesterfield gave the answer to the criticisms which have been made. This is not a final programme. This is the beginning of a very big programme. I should be very disappointed to feel that it was to be the end of our building programme for the future. It deals with a large part of the problem, but by no means with the whole of it. I agree with the hon. Member that we are going through an experimental chapter. We are going to try out the experiments that are included in the Criminal Justice Bill and nobody, here and now, can say how many boys and girls will go to Howard houses, compulsory attendance centres or Borstal institutions in the future. Experience may show that we shall want far more Borstal institutions than we have at present, but that does not mean that we should not go on with the first chapter of the programme.
I think every hon. Member will agree that whatever may be the disadvantages of institutional treatment for girls, they will be much less conspicuous in the kind of institution which we are contemplating, in which the girls will be in smaller houses and will have a good many opportunities for outdoor work. Anyhow, this is a great step forward. As far as the question of segregation between the two institutions is concerned, let me tell the Committee what actually happened. This is, incidentally, an answer to the criticism made by the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). It is a very difficult job to get a big site for a new prison in this country. We have no compulsory powers of purchase, and as soon as we make an attempt in this or that part of the country to secure such a site, there is immediately a great deal of local opposition. That is the reason for the delay in obtaining this site —the difficulty of getting the kind of site we require. We require a site near London and a very extensive area, and I think the extent of the site in some degree supplies the answer to the criticism that has been made against having the two institutions on the same site. It has been hard enough to find one site, but if we had to find two, it would take us months and months to do so. On that account, although we gave full consideration to the drawbacks of having


these two institutions near each other, we took the view that when we had got, as we have got a really extensive site near London where there is plenty of room, it was better to secure that site.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Why is it necessary to have a site near London?

Sir S. Hoare: I think almost every hon. Member will see the reason. Most of these girls come from the neighbourhood of London. I think I would be right in saying that by far the greater proportion of them come from the neighbourhood of London, and, as the hon. Member will recognise at once, the friends and relatives of the girls are placed in a great difficulty if the girls are so far away that their relatives cannot visit them and they cannot visit their relatives.

Mr. Williams: I was thinking of the evacuation scheme.

Sir S. Hoare: I am no longer responsible for A.R.P. and I will leave my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to deal with that problem. As I was about to say, however, this site is a big one and the two institutions will be quite separate. Further, I can assure the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) that we shall call them by different names and keep them as distinct as we can. In the girls' Borstal, by means of the system of small houses, we shall be able to have much better classification than has been possible in the past. The hon. Member for Chesterfield, who has studied this question, knows how difficult it is to deal with a number of girls in a Borstal institution, but I think we shall be able to deal with them better than we have a number of small houses each containing, say, 20 or 25. The hon. Member asked me why the girls in the Borstal at Aylesbury seemed to be more unruly than the boys in the other Borstals about the country. I must not be drawn into a comparison between the virtues and vices of the two sexes, but I am told that the reason is that quarter sessions and Assizes are inclined to send to Borstal only girls who have committed some serious offence or who are connected with some grave situation and the standard of gravity of the offences, if I may use such an expression, is higher in the case of the girls than in the case of the boys.

Mr. Benson: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that smashing up has nothing to do with the moral turpitude of the individual. It is a purely emotional explosion, and is neurotic rather than moral.

Sir S. Hoare: Again, I must refuse to be drawn into a psychological discussion, but I should have thought that it might be taken as a symptom rather of the seriousness of the case. However, I hope that when the girls are in this new country institution, with plenty of outdoor life and exercise—incidentally they are to have playing-fields and a swimming bath at this new institution—-they will get so tired during the day that they will be disinclined to use their energies in this manner when they return to the institution in the evening. I hope the Committee will feel satisfied that we are determined to keep these two institutions separate, and that we take the view that this is by no means the last word in prison reform. We shall take into account what the hon. Member for West Fulham has said. As she knows, one of the difficulties, in the past, in these prisons has been the absence of any means of effective classification, and conversation very often meant contamination. But I think we are passing away from that chapter to a better chapter, and, with that explanation, I hope the Committee will now give me the Vote.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Prison Commissioners and of the Prisons in England and Wales.

CLASS VI.

FISHERY BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,130, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and a grant in aid of piers or quays.

6.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): Last year a sum of money was voted for the construction of a new fishery patrol vessel which will very soon come into commission. The


estimated cost of the new vessel at that time was £45,000. Since that estimate was made there has been some increase in the shipbuilding costs and the lowest tender which we got for this new vessel was£48,800, that is, £3,800 more than the original Estimate. Of that sum seven-eighths falls to be paid during the course of the present financial year, and the extra sum of seven-eighths of £3,800 is reduced by various minor savings under one or two other heads to the figure of £2,130 which is now asked for.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: This Vote concerns the completion of a vessel which is to undertake patrol duties off the coast of Scotland, and I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that the patrol service rendered by such vessels as this in the Firth of Forth at present, is effective. It happens that in those waters there is taking place now the principal winter fishing in the whole of the British Isles, and, as my hon. Friend knows, a week or two ago there occurred some serious incidents causing damage to a good many fishermen. Apparently the fishery patrol vessel was not there at the time and I would be glad of an assurance that, in this most important fishing ground, the patrol services of the Fishery Board are in active operation.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: As a matter of fact, the new vessel in respect of which this sum is being asked will operate only on the West Coast of Scotland, and I am afraid that its activities will not extend to the Firth of Forth, but, if I am allowed to do so, I shall gladly do my best to answer my hon. Friend's question. As he knows, patrol vessels on the East Coast have been instructed to pay particular attention to preventing friction between ring net and drift net fishermen. The complaints to which he has referred were received only the other day and were the first complaints of this kind of damage which have been received for some time. We are still making inquiries into the cause of those complaints, and I am not able to say that I have any definite evidence: to show that this damage was done by ring nets, although I am afraid there is a great deal of feeling to that effect.

Mr. Stewart: What do the drift net fishermen say?

Mr. Wedderburn: They are the other parties to the dispute. I can assure my hon. Friend that the efforts of the patrol vessels will continue to be directed to the prevention of damage and that, in this connection, what he has said will receive the most careful attention.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I take it that this new vessel is the third of the vessels which were promised by the late Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir Godfrey Collins, in replacement of other vessels which had become out of date, and that it marks the completion of a programme, part of which was held up owing to certain economies. I wish to raise a question regarding this new cruiser and the duties which it is to perform. The particular vessel which it is supposed to replace is one which, among others, has been the subject of a good deal of criticism during previous Debates on this Vote. I should like to ask whether the Under-Secretary is satisfied that the functions that these fishery cruisers are supposed to perform are being properly carried out. I have had quite a number of complaints about the number of times that these fishery cruisers are being brought from the Moray Firth and from further north—from the Orkneys and Shetlands—right down to the port of Leith to be coaled. No other vessel is sent to take their place during the time they are absent from those fishing grounds. I have also seen with my own eyes three fishery vessels, one of them the research vessel, lying in Leith Harbour at the same time. I should like to know what is being done to make much more effective the attack upon illegal trawling which these vessels are supposed to be making.
Another point is this. 1 notice that the report of the Fishery Board for Scotland gives, on page 42, the number of days that each of these fishery cruisers is supposed to spend at sea. Are those the days when those vessels are absent from the harbour? Suppose, for example, the "Norna" the first on the list, sails out from harbour but anchors in one of the many lochs on the west or north coast of Scotland for a day or a night, or


a couple of days or nights—are those included in "days at sea "? Will the particulars not convey a great deal more information if the number of miles steamed is stated rather than the number of days at sea? In all probability those days are spent in the lochs. That is a point which has never yet been cleared up to the satisfaction of many people in Scotland who are interested in this subject, and they are greatly concerned at the manner in which the control of these vessels is exercised, either by the Fishery Board for Scotland or by the supervising authority, the Scottish Office itself.
I mentioned the case of several of the fishery cruisers being in Leith Harbour at the same time. It is also the case, or was the case, that the vessels that patrol the west coast of Scotland come down to Greenock to be coaled instead of coaling at Oban or some place further north, and the fishing ground on the west coast is left unprotected in the meantime against illegal trawling within the three-mile limit. The report gives the number of captures by these fishery cruisers for illegal trawling—four captures by the "Norna," 22 by the "Freya," four by the "Minna" which, I take it, is now scrapped, seven by the "Brenda," 10 by the "Vigilant" and none at all by either the "Vaila" or the "Fidra." That, to my mind, shows rather a small proportion of captures for illegal trawling.
The number of complaints made of vessels seen within the limit engaged in illegal trawling is considerably greater than the number of captures made, and I would like to know what the speed of this new vessel is likely to be, because some of these trawlers which are regularly engaged in illegal trawling are vessels that are fairly well equipped with engines which can drive them at a much higher speed than that of the fishery cruisers. Will this new fishery cruiser be sufficiently well engined to be able to overtake the trawlers engaged in illegal trawling? If it can, that is an indication that what we have been demanding for many years can be done, and there will be a further demand to the Scottish Office that the fleet of fishery cruisers in Scotland should be overhauled and re-engined in order to bring the vessels up to a much more efficient standard.
It has been a scandal that Scotland has been treated in the manner it has. It was only a year or two ago that we got rid

of the old "Vigilant," which had been sailing for close on 80 years. The Fishery Department expected a vessel of that age to be able to cope with some of the modern trawlers that come fishing in Scottish waters. I hope that this is only the beginning of a much more effective patrolling of these waters. If the hon. Gentleman opposite can give me a satisfactory answer to some of the points that I have raised he will provide some much desired information for those who are interested in the fisheries of Scotland.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: In reply to the hon. Gentleman I ought, of course, to remind the Committee that we are only discussing the reasons for the increase of last year's Estimate, which has already been voted, but I will do my best on the spur of the moment to deal with the questions which the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has put to me. In general, I think there has been within the last few years a very substantial improvement in the state of affairs in regard to illegal trawling, and the number of complaints which we are receiving of illegal trawling is very much less than it used to be. Of course, it does not necessarily follow that because there is a small number of captures there is, therefore, a greater amount of illegal trawling. I have taken careful note of the point which the hon. Gentleman made with regard to the places where these vessels coal. I understand he suggested that more time would be left for them to perform their patrol duties if they coaled at places more conveniently situated, in the proximity of the waters which they are intended to patrol. I will certainly look into that point.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the fact that the fishery vessels can coal at Lerwick? Why should a vessel patrolling in the north of Scotland be brought down to Leith to coal when she can coal at Lerwick?

Mr. Wedderburn: I will certainly look into that point. I will also consider whether it would be useful to have the number of miles steamed by patrol vessels inserted in the table in the report. With regard to the way in which the particulars in that table are made up, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman very full information at this moment. The time spent in going backwards and forwards to the coaling station is counted, as far as I know, but I do not think that the time


spent lying up in a loch would be so counted. The hon. Gentleman referred to the new patrol vessel as the third of the new cruisers. Actually it is the fourth — the "Vigilant," the "Fidra," and the "Rona" were the first three, and now this new one replaces the old boat, the "Minna," which is now 39 years old and is being scrapped. The new vessel will be ready in a few weeks' time. With regard to its speed, I could tell the hon. Gentleman the speed, but I am not sure that it would be in the public interest to reveal the speed at which it is able to overtake those it detects in the act of breaking the law. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the minimum speed of this new boat is substantially greater than the speed of that which it will replace, and I think it will be able to overtake the trawlers which are found breaking the law.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,130, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and a grant in aid of piers or quays.

CLASS II.

INDIA AND BURMA SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma, and grants-in-aid of military expenditure from Indian Revenues.

7.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The object of this Supplementary Estimate is to obtain Parliamentary authority to implement an offer made by His Majesty's Government which was the subject of a Press communiqué on 13th September last, when the House was not sitting. This offer was, firstly, to increase the annual grant-in-aid made to Indian defence expenditure from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 a year; secondly, to make a capital grant of £5,000,000 for the re-equipment of certain units, both British and Indian; and,

thirdly, to re-equip certain squadrons with more modern aircraft. In 1933 a Tribunal sat, under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Garran, to inquire into certain matters of defence expenditure which were in dispute between the Government of India, the War Office, and the Air Ministry. That Tribunal, in the course of its report, expressed the opinion:
That the Army in India is a force, ready in an emergency to take the field at once, which does not exist elsewhere in the Empire, which is specially available for immediate use in the East, and which has on occasion been so used.
Following on that expression of opinion, the Tribunal recommended that a contribution be made annually from His Majesty's Government to the Indian Revenue, and subsequently an annual sum of £1,500,000 was agreed upon, and that annual grant has been paid ever since. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that on 10th March last the Secretary of State for War, speaking on the Army Estimates, said that the Prime Minister had authorised the starting discussions on the subject of the role of the land and air forces in India, both from the point of view of defence problems in India and from the wider point of view of Imperial Defence problems as a whole. Last Autumn, although there had not then been time to arrive at complete agreement on all points, the discussions had reached a point which, in view of the urgency of the matter, enabled certain interim decisions to be taken. It enabled an offer to be made to the Government of India, subject, of course, always to Parliamentary approval, first of all to increase the annual grant, secondly to mke a capital grant towards the new equipment in connection with modernising the Army, and, thirdly, to re-equip certain aircraft squadrons with more modern aircraft.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: As to the discussions regarding the role of the Army in India, by which I take it that the hon. and gallant Gentleman meant both the British Army in India and the Indian Army, can he say between whom the discussions took place?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: They were, I think, professional discussions, but I could not say exactly who were involved in them.

Mr. Benn: Am I right in supposing that these sums are for the Indian Army as well as for the British Army in India?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, I think I said that, with regard to the capital grant, the re-equipment of certain Army units, both British and Indian, was included. The factors which influenced these decisions were, first, the need of modernising the units of the Indian Army in view of the fact that they might be employed outside India and side by side with other units, and, secondly, the fact that no more expenditure could reasonably be expected from the Indian Revenues on the subject of defence. The Government of India had suggested in this connection that an expert body of inquiry should go out to India and examine the military and financial problems on the spot and should report in due course before the discussions to which I have already alluded were finally completed. Its report has now been received and is being considered, both here and in India, and it had a considerable bearing on the decisions taken last Autumn.
With regard to the items in the Estimate, the bigger item is for £300,000 in respect of aircraft. If a decision is arrived at on the Chatfield Committee's Report before 31st March, it will, of course, be possible to despatch the aircraft to India, but in point of fact it will otherwise be possible to do so, because these aircraft for the re-equipment of the Indian squadrons have not been specially ordered for the purpose, but have merely been earmarked and can, if necessary, easily be put to other uses. Therefore, even if no decision is arrived at before 31st March on the subject of the Chatfield Committee's recommendation, it will still be possible to send those aircraft to India, without involving any expenditure upon this Vote. They might, for instance, go on the basis that the Government of India took them on the understanding that they would refund out-of-pocket expenses and any damage incurred. With regard to the capital sum for Army re-equipment, the sum of £10 is merely put in as a token, as it was thought convenient that the Committee should have, as it were, a complete picture of the expenditure involved. It was certainly not thought, anyhow, that any expenditure on this item should be incurred before 31st

March. Consequently, anything in this connection which will be required will be a matter for inclusion in next year's Estimates. The Committee may wonder why the third point which I mentioned, namely, the increase of the annual grant, is not subject to inclusion in a Supplementary Estimate. That, of course, will only date from 1st April next, so that it will come within next year's Estimates anyhow.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Benns: After thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his explanation, I should like to ask a general question. How far is an effort being made to interest Indian public opinion in these things? We know quite well—I can remember from the days of the last Indian Round Table Conference—how eager Indian politicians were to be associated with the task of modernising the Army, and it would be interesting if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could tell us, now that we have come to the time to make large grants for the defence of India, how far some effort is being made to interest the Indian Legislative Assembly and patriotic Indian opinion in this programme for defence measures, taken, not only for India, but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, for the purpose of being of use in the other parts of the Empire as well.

7.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think on that point one might say that patriotic Indian opinion is already very keenly interested in Indian defence matters, and very considerable proof has been given of that in the past and indeed quite recently. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman read a very remarkable and, I thought, inspiring speech—I am rather afraid that in the general flow of news at the time of the crisis it was rather submerged—made by the Prime Minister of the Punjab, in which he gave a most complete assurance of support from the Punjab, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, supplies a large portion of the troops in the Indian Army. It is true that the question of defence is a reserved service, and I am not suggesting that any alteration is going to be made in that, but it is true that members of the Legislature are always being invited to visit troops, military units, and establishments, and, indeed, I think the fact


that interest in defence matters is general is signified by the many questions which are asked and answered in the Assembly.

Mr. Benn: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I would make this comment, that I believe very sincerely that you will never give the fullest effect to your measures for the defence of India until you can associate the Indian people directly with the defence of their own country.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£300,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma, and grants in aid of military expenditure from Indian Revenues.

CLASS VII.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament buildings.

7.28 p.m.

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): This Vote is sufficiently familiar to the Committee, I think, to require very little explanation from me. Provision is sought in the Estimate to meet the cost of the forthcoming reception of the French President in Westminster Hall. It covers the cost of the necessary heating alterations and other incidental expenses. Of the sum for maintenance and repairs, £1,000 is in respect of air-raid precautions and £3,000 is in respect of engineering services. The latter item covers the provision of electric light fittings and increased wages. I think it will be correct to say that the improved lighting in the House generally has met with the approval of hon. Members, and in consequence I hope that no exception will be taken to this item of £1,350 for increased current consumption. As an offset against this expenditure, there is a saving of £2,250 on furniture, etc., which is mainly due to economies effected in the cost of the black blinds for air-raid precautions.

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.

7.30 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: This Vote is concerned with the salaries of the staff of my Department and various expenses connected with the work and administration. I am directly responsible for carrying out the work which is detailed for the most part in Votes 1 to 11 in class VII of the Civil Estimates, and the staffs and other costs incurred in so doing are charged on this Vote. In addition, however, I carry out extensive works for other Departments on an agency basis, for which I receive a percentage of the cost of the work to cover the cost of the services of my Department. Hon. Members will observe in the details of the printed Estimate that the receipts from these sources shown under appropriations in aid will practically cover the additional staff and other costs, with the result that I am in the happy position of having to ask the Committee to give me a token sum of only £10.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Benn: Am I right in supposing that the amount asked for is reduced because of the increase in the appropriations in aid and that therefore some of the sums which the right hon. Gentleman would have spent on some of his purposes has not been called for?

Sir P. Sassoon: I am not allowed to get more than will cover my deficiency. If I get more it goes back to the Exchequer.

Mr. Benn: Last year we found out some very interesting things on this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman is the agency employed in, for example, building war department factories. If it happens that that work is in arrears we can find that from his Vote, and we did so last year. We found to our surprise that a lot of orders that had been given had not been carried out and the money had not been asked for. Does the amount of these appropriations in aid mean that there has been a retardation in the building of these factories and that they have not been


built to the extent that it was thought they would be when the original Estimate was drawn up.

Sir P. Sassoon: I think that this amount is the result of the fact that we have had a speeding up of work on these factories. We have had to do more work than we originally estimated we would have to do. That is why the salaries for which we are asking is larger.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £491,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including historic buildings, ancient monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain housing estates.

7.34 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: This is a large and somewhat miscellaneous Vote covering all services of Government Departments which are not accounted for under other Works Votes. The largest item, £486,075, is in respect of new works, alterations, etc. Of this sum, £150,000 is for air-raid precautions for Government buildings under this Vote, and it covers the provision of refuge accommodation for official staffs. The works being carried out are the outcome of the Government's policy and are on the lines laid down for the general public. The sum of £13,625 for the National Physical Training College is to meet the balance of the purchase money and survey costs. It is hoped to start building operations this summer and to complete in three or four years time. There are three items for the Stationery Office. The work at Harrow has already been authorised by Parliament, and the further sum of £19,000 now required is to meet additional requirements and modifications of the original scheme and acceleration of the building works. The large item of £254,000 for the Board of Trade Food (Defence Plans) Department is already explained to some extent in the Estimate. The cost is not a final charge to this Vote, but is recovered from the fund administered by the Board of Trade for which an initial grant-in-aid of £8,500,000 was voted in July last. The foregoing remarks cover the main items in the new works sub-head. The largest item on the

other sub-heads is £120,000 for additional furniture, which is mainly due to the increases in the Government staffs consequent on the acceleration of the defence programme. Of the large sum under appropriations-in-aid £254,000 is in respect of the item appearing in subhead A in respect of the Board of Trade Food (Defence Plans) Department. The Committee will observe that the additional sum required is in the main connected with the Government's defence policy and programme.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Edes: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can expect to get nearly £500,000 merely by asking for it, and he must not be surprised if we want to ask a few questions, but I have no doubt that, with his usual courtesy, he will be able to give us the information. With regard to the sum of £254,000 for the Board of Trade in connection with the purchase of sites and the erection of storage accommodation for certain essential commodities, it would be improper for me, in view of the nature of the service, to ask where these sites are. I should like some explanation, however, why it has been necessary to purchase sites and to erect buildings, because I understood, when the President of the Board of Trade was explaining the matter when the Act under which these sites have been purchased was before the House, that certain large dealers in various commodities had undertaken to store the commodities for the Government and that the country was under a great indebtedness to them for having saved us from this particular type of expenditure. Is this expenditure supplementary to that or was it contemplated when the Act was before the House? As far as I can recollect, no expenditure of this kind was foreshadowed. On item E can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the new ancient monuments are which have been brought under the control of his Department in respect of which this compensation is being paid? I am not criticising this item, because I think the work that has been done by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in recent years in safeguarding ancient monuments, not merely in making them accessible to the public, but making them interesting to the public, is in every way praiseworthy.
I was interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the site for the


National Physical Training College is now acquired and that it is at Merstham, because it will be sufficiently near to London to make the college attractive to the students whom the Board of Education desire to go there. I am somewhat surprised to hear, however, that the college will not be completed within the next three years. When the Physical Training and Recreation Act was before the House the then President of the Board of Education alluded to this as one of the most important matters that the country had to face in its endeavour to provide a more physically fit generation. I know as chairman of one of the area committees under that campaign, the tremendeus difficulties we have to encounter in getting class leaders and persons properly fitted to give instruction in physical training. This institution was to provide us, and, I hope, will eventually do so, with a sufficient flow of that type of person, but if the building is not to start until the coming summer and not to be completed for another three years, it will put off for a long time any adequate flow of men for this purpose. It is men rather more than women who are required. The output of women from the existing colleges and from certain Continental colleges supplies fairly reasonably the needs of the country.
To have to wait for another three and a half years before we begin to take students in—and it will be some time after that before they are turned out properly qualified to give instruction and to lead classes—is to postpone for a substantial time the necessary work of getting ready to carry on this work. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something more reassuring. Can he tell us the acreage of this site and how much of the final figure of £385,000 is required for the lay-out of the ground and the provision of facilities for instruction in outdoor leadership? If there is one thing necessary, it is that a good deal of the leadership in this matter should be outside the gymnasium. The gymnasium services can be fairly well supplied from a good many of the existing colleges. I hope that this site at Merstham, which I know very well, and which admirably lends itself to training in outdoor recreation, will be fully used, and that the young men who come away from that place will be well fitted in that type of work as well as in gymnasium

work, and the remedial exercises which on occasion have formed rather too much of the curriculum of these colleges. Reverting to ancient monuments, I know that the right hon. Gentleman is too much an expert in these matters to buy any fake antiques. When he takes over an ancient monument he is sure that it is an ancient monument, and it is to the credit of his Department that it remains one and that the people who go to see it have the advantage of seeing it in circumstances which make the antiquity apparent and interesting.

7.45 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) regarding storage accommodation and whether we are buying the sites, I have to say that only in one case have we had to buy a site and that was because the concern upon whose land the storage is being effected had not sufficient land for what we need. The other sites have been let to us upon purely nominal leases. We are paying, of course, for the increased capacity which we need for storage.

Mr. Ede: Then the wording on page 28 is, probably unintentionally, misleading, because it speaks of the purchase of "sites," and it should be "site."

Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, we have made a purchase in only one case. In the other cases we have leases. As regards what the hon. Member described as the "new ancient monument," I think he will rejoice when I tell him that this sum is called for to protect the most perfect portion of Hadrian's Wall——

Mr. Ede: I am glad to hear it.

Sir P. Sassoon: ——which was in great danger of being damaged or destroyed by the workings of a quarry. It caused us a great deal of anxiety, but by the arrangement which we have been able to make with the quarry owners and the mineral owners we are now able to protect this portion of the wall.

Mr. David Adams: Where is it? At Housesteads?

Sir P. Sassoon: The name of the place is Greenhead. With regard to the college at Merstham, I am afraid I cannot make any very hopeful prophecy that it will be built in a very short time. During the


past year we have had long discussions with the Board of Education on this very important subject and are anxious that the college should be up to date in the best sense of the word. It is, as the hon. Member rightly said, to be put to a very important use, in training, to begin with, 180 resident students who are to be the instructors and the leaders in the whole of this important movement all over the country. I will not weary the hon. Member with the details of the scheme now, but I shall be delighted to give them to him if he would care to have them, and I think he will approve of our action. We shall start on the foundation contract this summer, I hope, and the hon. Member can rest assured that the building will be completed at the earliest possible moment consistent with its being the kind of building he wants.

Mr. Ede: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and on behalf of a north country constituency, express its gratification that the particular difficulty which had arisen in the case of Hadrian's Wall has been settled in the satisfactory manner indicated.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I notice that under sub-head G. "Cleaning, Custody, &c." there is an increased item of £4,000 for wages. Does that mean that the men now working are having an increase in wages or that additional workers are to be employed, and may we know what wage those men are getting?

Sir P. Sassoon: To begin with there are more offices to be looked after than there were previously, and therefore more people are required to look after them, and those people, the watchmen and the cleaners, are getting an increased wage. In the case of the watchmen the increase is 3s. 6d. a week.

Mr. Griffiths: What are the wages of the charwomen? That is what we call them in Yorkshire. In London they would be called experienced cleaners of offices, but in our county we call them "charwomen "—I mean the women who do the dusting of the furniture, etc.

Sir P. Sassoon: I have not the figures with me, but I will let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Griffiths: The reason is that we have some miners who have been thrown

out of work—about 500 in our pit—and I believe their wives would like a job in order to help to "keep the wolf from the door." If there are any jobs of cleaning to spare we shall be glad if you will let us have them.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Benn: These Supplementary Estimates do repay study, not only for important details such as my hon. Friend has asked about, but in regard to wider issues. For example, under Sub-head A. II on page 27 appears the item of £150,000 for "Air-Raid Precautions— provision for protective works." Appended to that is the figure 27, but I cannot find an item 27 in the original Estimates. If I am right, what it means is that when, in July, there was all the talk about being ready for an emergency —because those Estimates would have been laid any time after July last year— not one farthing had been put into the Estimates for "air-raid precautions, provision for protective works." It is interesting, if my facts are right, to discover that when we had Ministers co-ordinating everything, and a whole array of eminent statesmen on the Treasury Bench, there was nothing in the Estimates for air-raid precautionary work, and that it is only now, in a Supplementary Estimate hastily brought in on 6th March, 1939, that this figure first appears. We are all glad to know that precautions are being taken against air raids, but we should have been in favour of the Government having thought of it a little earlier.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £491,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including historic buildings, ancient monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain housing estates.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS OVERSEAS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of public buildings overseas.

7.55 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: This Vote makes provision for the maintenance and furnishing


of all Embassies and Legation buildings, for the accommodation for High Commissioners in the Dominions, and certain Consular buildings. The sums required are to supplement the provision which was made in the main Estimates for the purchase of sites for new Embassies in Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires. Parliamentary authority is also required for the purchase of a site for a new Embassy in Warsaw. The necessity for including this in the Supplementary Vote is due to the fact that a suitable site is at present in the market. Against the £30,500 to be spent on new works there is a set-off in the expected saving of £4,500 which is under the maintenance sub-head. The amount required is still further decreased by the increase in appropriations-in-aid resulting from the sale of the Vienna Legation. With this explanation I ask the Committee to let me have the Vote.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Benn: The present Embassy in Warsaw is not, I believe, the property of the Government. It is a very beautiful house, but it is rented, and it has to be relinquished, I suppose, on account of the end of the tenancy. I understand that the Estimate for the new building is £100,000, of which sum only £4,000 is being asked for at present. As regards the appropriation-in-aid from the sale of the old Legation in Vienna, am I right in supposing that we are getting only £9,000 for that very handsome building? I suppose it was our property—I do not know whether it was freehold or leasehold. It is a very handsome building, and I am surprised to find that only £9,150 was realised by its sale.

7.57 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he said about Warsaw. At present the Embassy is housed in a very beautiful palace, but it is not in a very good locality—an extremely noisy one and one which is likely to become more commercial. We could not possibly continue the lease, because I believe that the owner wishes, at the end of our tenancy, to develop the site commercially, and so we are obliged to look out for another site. We think we have found a very suitable site, and as there is no actual building available for our purpose we shall have to build. With

regard to the former Legation in Vienna, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a very fine building, and that the sum which we have secured for it appears to be very small; indeed, it is very small from our point of view. Unfortunately, there is at the present day very little demand for large houses in Vienna, and we thought that the best thing to do was to sell it when we had an opportunity, which had not been presented to us before. The National Socialist Flying Corps offered us 250,000 marks, and we were only allowed to take this money out of the country at the registered mark rate, so that it came to only £9,000. On consideration we thought it was the best thing to do. There was no particular reason for leaving the money there. Although I am very much with the right hon. Gentleman in regretting that we have not been able to get more money for the Legation, I do not see what else we could have done.

Mr. Benn: Did we get it in free currency or blocked marks?

Sir P. Sassoon: It was in registered marks.

Mr. Benn: It was in registered marks, which are 22 or 24 to the £. Here, again, we see how interesting it is to study the Estimates. We find that a building which, if it had been in London, would have been worth, I should think, £50,000, because it is a magnificent building, has been sold to an agency of the Nazi organisation, and we are graciously permitted to take£9,000 in registered marks out of the country in return for it. I should not be allowed to deal with the general foreign policy of the Government upon this Vote, but it is interesting to see how from time to time we come upon little vestiges of the wreckage that has been caused by it. This is only a matter of selling for £9,000 a building which might well be worth anything from £50,000 to £100,000, and it is another instance of the success of the policy for which the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are responsible.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I am doubtful whether the Committee ought to pass this Vote without registering a protest against the last item, which concerns the sale of the old Legation premises in Vienna. If my right hon.


Friend was anything like accurate in his estimate of the value of the property— and I should hesitate to think that his estimate was very far out, from what I have heard of the Legation—it is remarkable that we should merely have the explanation that the property has been handed over to some National Socialist Flying Corps for some sum of money and that all we are to be allowed to take out of this enlarged Germany is the sum of £9,150. Did the Government get any advice whether it would have been better to wait for a time to see whether the property would fetch more when Austria was under happier conditions? Everyone knows that property in this country has varied in value in different parts of the country. An hon. Friend of mine told me in the Lobby how he had stood out for £1,650 for a house against the advice of his estate agent, who said that he would not be likely to get more than £1,500 because the house was on the East Coast. My friend managed to get the extra £150. Was advice taken whether this was the best financial bargain that the Government could make in this matter?
Is this a recognition that we shall never want an Embassy in Vienna again? Some of us hope that there may yet be an independent Austria in Europe, but is this an indication that the Government do not share that hope? This place was notoriously one of the great ambassadorial houses of the British Government in what was one of the most magnificent capitals of Europe. We are asked to believe that the building is now worth no more than £9,150. I rather gathered that if we had not taken that price things might have been worse and we might not have got as much for the house. Was it a free sale? Was there any competition for the building? Was this the only offer that we had? If that Corps was after it, was anybody else allowed to make a better offer? Would it have been safe for anybody else to make a better offer after it was known that the National Socialist Flying Corps wanted the building for £9,150? Would it have been safe for anybody to say they were willing to give £10,000 for the building in order to make a refuge for Jews in some happier state? Could the Government expect anything like that to happen? I suggest that a reply should be given to these questions.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Harvey: I hope that the First Commissioner of Works will give some further explanation to the Committee on this important point and particularly will assure the Committee that it was necessary at this early stage to part with such a very valuable and historic building for such a small figure. I do not know whether the purchase is complete; possibly it is not yet complete; if so, surely it will be possible to retain this important and valuable building in British ownership in order to make temporary use of it. It would be very useful to the Consul-General in Vienna in connection with the granting of visas for those who have to leave the country. Surely it would be possible to find a useful service for the building for some time to come. It would be better that the building should be made use of as an institute of British culture rather than that the Government should accept a paltry sum, which in no way corresponds to the value of the building, for an exceedingly valuable possession which at some future date might be put to better use. I hope that the First Commissioner of Works has some explanation to give in regard to the alternatives to this sale of the Embassy building, and will be able to say whether the sale can be reconsidered.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I would ask the First Commissioner of Works the cost of this building to the country. What did we pay for it? What would it have fetched in the open market? What has this country lost? Something is wrong when we have to accept a price which is small in comparison with the cost, and we ought to make a protest, in case things like this happen again. In some cases we might have to make the best of a bad bargain, but rather than give a thing away, such as appears to have been the case, we should say that if we cannot get fair value for it we shall hang on to it as long as we can. The price stated appears much too small for the sale of a mansion. I hope that the First Commissioner of Works will tell us something of the circumstances. Were we forced into this sale or was it a voluntary arrangement? We ought to voice our protest by a vote that things are going on in this way. We are entitled to a much better explanation.

8.8 p.m.

Commander Bower: Like a great many other Members of the Committee I am very well acquainted with this building, and it seems nothing short of an outrage that a building of this value should be sacrificed like this. I cannot see anything in the national, political or economic situation in the world to-day to justify the transaction. Are the Government so absolutely satisfied that the present position in Austria will continue for ever that they throw away this very valuable asset? I hope that we shall be told its cost in the way of rates and taxes if we were to retain it, at any rate until the European situation has settled down.

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I apologise to the Committee but I am in ignorance of what has been going on. It seems to me that there has been a good deal of discussion of policy relating to the appropriation-in-aid, but I must point out that on questions of appropriation-in-aid policy cannot be discussed.

Mr. Benn: I assume that on a question of appropriation-in-aid we are in order in asking whether the appropriation was sufficient, and the conditions in which this particular property had been disposed of.

The Chairman: That is rather a different case. It seems to me that the three hon. Members whom I have heard since I came into the Chamber have been discussing the question whether it ought to have been sold or retained. That is a question of policy.

Commander Bower: I appreciate that the Debate has perhaps ranged a little wide. I have no desire to enlarge on questions of policy, but I want to repeat that the feeling is not confined to the benches opposite, that this transaction is extremely doubtful. We do not feel satisfied that it is justified in any way, and a great many Members on this side of the Committee will want some explanation—and a rather full explanation—why this extraordinary sacrifice is being made.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: First as to the item:
Oslo Legation: Additional accommodation for Chancery.
I recently had the privilege of visiting this building and I should like to say how courteously and competently the officials there were able to deal with a business

transaction in which I was interested. Are we to understand that the new trade push has necessitated this item? There is the question of the purchase of a site and the erection of an Embassy at Rio de Janeiro. We had an Embassy at Rio previously, and no item appears to be shown for the sale of the previous building. Perhaps some information will be afforded on this point.
In regard to the sale about which so much has been said, it may be that the Committee is unduly concerning itself and that this may be part of the policy of appeasement. I shall not discuss whether that policy is right or otherwise, because we are not permitted to do so, but the probability is that if the First Commissioner told us exactly what was in the mind of the Government we should find that this was just a little more of the consequence of appeasement in that part of Europe with which the House is so fully acquainted. Perhaps we ought to consider ourselves extremely fortunate that we got anything at all for those old Legation premises.

8.13 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: I am sure that the Committee will realise that the actual value of a house is difficult to assess unless you take it in relation with the general circumstances. I should have thought it obvious that the value of palaces and big houses in Vienna must be much less than when that city was the capital of a sovereign State. What was the alternative to selling this house? The alternative was to hang on to it, perhaps for a long period of years, paying rates.

Mr. Benn: On what assessment? At what was the building assessed?

Sir P. Sassoon: We should also be paying for the care and maintenance of the building. If we had sold the property to a private individual, it is very likely, in view of the circumstances in Vienna to-day, that we should not have been able to get any money out at all. We are not in a position to dictate to the rulers of Vienna to-day, and it was for us to consider whether it was more advantageous to incur a loss—a very big loss, of course—and get a certain sum of money definitely out of the country, or to keep this large building going and pay rates and taxes on it. Weighing all these considerations, we came to the conclusion


that, taking it all in all, what we did, although it may seem to have involved a very heavy loss, was the best that we could do in the circumstances.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has not treated the Committee with proper respect. He has entirely failed to answer the questions put to him by hon. Members above the Gangway. One of those questions, to which an answer was very necessary, was how much the building originally cost; and another question, put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), was as to the value at which the building was assessed. The Minister has not attempted to answer any of these very pertinent questions. He has not told us whether the Government accepted the offer as soon as it was made, whether any counter proposals were made on behalf of his Department, whether they simply accepted the offer of £9,000 odd at once, or whether they said that it was less than the building was worth and asked a higher price. We have not had any account of the history of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we are not in a position to dictate to the rulers in Vienna to-day, but no one ever suggested that we were. It very rarely happens that the seller of property is in a position to dictate to the buyer, but that is no reason why he should dispose of his property for considerably less than its real value. It is interesting to observe that the Minister either cannot or will not tell us what that real value is.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I was very much astonished by the statement of the Minister. He asks: What could we do?

Sir P. Sassoon: What I said was that the German Government wanted the building, and it was very unlikely that any private individual would purchase it, while, if he had, it was unlikely that we should be able to get the money out of the country.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister has told us that the German Government wanted this house, but he has never told us what its value was. His officials under the Gallery must know what its value is, and we want to know the figure.

Sir P. Sassoon: The value of a house, I suppose, is what you can get for it. If the hon. Member wants to know what it originally cost, I can tell him that it cost£39,000, including the building and the furniture. But that was in very different days, unfortunately, from those in which we are now.

Commander Bower: At what date was it built?

Sir P. Sassoon: In 1873.

Mr. Lyons: Can my right hon. Friend say what it is worth to-day?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. and learned Member has only just come in, but some of us have been here throughout the whole discussion. The building is sold, and we have got the money. We are told that it was worth £39,000, and now we have sold it for something like £9,000.

Sir P. Sassoon: That was the original cost.

Mr. Griffiths: Since 1873 the value might be expected to have gone up, but it has gone down. Our point is that, because the German Government wanted the house, the Minister leads us to believe that we have been obliged to let them have it, and to give it them at a throw-out price of £9,000. He says that, if we did not get that, he is not sure whether we should have got anything at all if it had been sold to somebody else—that if we had sold it for, say, £40,000, we could not have got the money out. This is the Government of business heads, that has been telling us that we do not know how to govern. The Government itself is not governing; Hitler is governing its policy. We are given to understand that he wants this building for the National Socialist Flying Corps, and no doubt—I am sorry the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) is not here at the moment— they are going to practise how they can fly over to Blackpool a little later on. The explanation of the Minister is a lame one, and we shall go into the Lobby as a protest against the unbusinesslike conduct of the Government in, not selling the building in question, but throwing it away to someone else. It seems that we can do anything for the foreigner, but when it comes to our own folks there is nothing for them.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £18,600, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 131.

Division No. 52.]
AYES.
[8.23 p.m.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Owen, Major G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Parker, J.


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pearson, A.


Batey, J.
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ridley, G.


Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Hicks, E. G.
Sanders, W. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silkin, L.


Daggar, G.
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Dalton, H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kirby, B. V.
Stewart, W. J (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Ede, J. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwtllty)
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Foot, D. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Marshall, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mathers, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Atterdiffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Grenfell, D. R.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Adamson and Mr. Chorlton.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Romer, J. R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr, P. G.
Hopkinson, A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Hunloke, H. P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bernays, B. H.
Hunter, T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Salt, E. W.


Bull, B B.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Burghley, Lord
Keeling, E. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cazalet, Thelma. (Islington, E.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Sir W.


Channon, H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Levy, T.
Spens, W. P.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lewis, O.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Liddall, W. S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lindsay, K. M.
Sluart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Courlauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cross, R. H.
Lyons, A. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Davidson, Viscountess
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
McKis, J. H.
Turton, R. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Donner, P. W.
Markham, S. F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Medlicott, F.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Waterhouse. Captain C.


Fleming, E. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Furness, S. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirenaester)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Grimston, R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wise, A. R.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Petherick, M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hambro, A. V.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsbotham, H.
York, C.


Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Harbord, A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper



Harvey, Sir G.
Rayner, Major R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hely-Hutchinson, M, R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Major Harvie Watt and Major


Holdsworth, H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Herbert.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding, £18,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of public buildings overseas.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

8.32 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: I beg to move,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise. Inland Revenue, Post Office and telegraph buildings in Great Britain, certain post offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with boats and launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.
Hon. Members will observe that the gross initial sum required is £113,010. This is reduced to £42,200 by anticipating savings. Out of the gross total, £74,500 is required for air-raid precautions services, and covers structural work in connection with refuge accommodation, fire precautions, provision for dark blinds and sacking and removal of records to clear basement space. A further sum of £30,000 is found to be necessary to meet the demands of the Post Office for minor alterations and additions. The main Vote is based on past experience, but for 1938 it was found to be insufficient. An anticipated saving of £33,000 on new works for Inland Revenue and Post Office buildings is mainly due to anticipated progress on various schemes not having been realised, or to their postponement. For the same reason there is a saving of £10,000 in rents. Hon. Members will be interested to hear that, as a result of mild weather last autumn, there has been a saving of £9,000 in the fuel sub-heads on this Vote. There is an additional sum of £14,800 in appropriations in aid, being the estimated amount to be recovered from the Post Office Savings Bank for air-raid precautions.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I will not comment on the weather. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with that. I am taking something far more serious. If the right hon. Gentleman will please turn to sub-head (b) and sub-head (i) and sub-head (d), he will find on all those sub-heads supplementary sums required for air-raid precautions. In the

main Estimate for 1938 no sums were tabled for air-raid precautions. I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General why, with all this talk last year about the necessity for air-raid precautions, all these things being done and so much being said about our schemes for air-raid precautions, the Government did not take in respect of his buildings—I think it comes under, "P, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings"—one farthing of money in order to protect these buildings. That certainly requires some explanation. People got the impression, when we had the discussions on air-raid precautions last year, that the Government were getting busy. We thought that they were slow, but we believed that they were doing something. Yet it is the fact that in March, 1939, this is the first farthing, as far as I can make out, asked of this House under this Vote for the purpose of protecting either in a general way or in particular, Post Office and Telegraph buildings. That means to say, if I am right—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that until this Estimate was presented and this authority of Parliament was obtained, he had not any Parliamentary authority for protecting his servants in the Post Office and Telegraph buildings. Am I right in supposing that that is the fact? If so it is certainly a most remarkable dereliction of duty. [Interruption.] I do not think that it is a laughing matter at all. It does not seem to me to be funny when the Government come for the first time to ask for money from Parliament in order to protect public servants who are doing their duty in the Post Office and other buildings. I may be wrong, and I may has misread it, but I would ask the Minister definitely whether this is the first sum that has been taken for air-raid precautions in public offices, and I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General in particular whether this is the first time that Parliamentary money has been asked for to protect the postal servants in his Department.

8.37 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: I would certainly not say that this is the first time that money was being asked for this purpose. There has always been a sum of money under the maintenance sub-heads which could be allocated for this purpose. Last September we were able to use that money


for A.R.P. services. It is obvious that since last September and the decision then taken that air-raid precautions should be pushed urgently forward to the maximum, we should have to spend more than we had intended in our original Estimate.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the amount of the original Vote of which this £20,000 in paragraph "P" is excess expenditure? I understood him to say that there was a sum, which was shown in greater detail in some particular Vote in his Department but was not submitted to the House which was sufficient for the ordinary running of air-raid precautions prior to last September, and that as from last September, and after the Government realised the magnitude of the work required, they found it would be necessary to exceed that Estimate. Can he tell us what the figure was?

Sir P. Sassoon: The original figure for this particular item was £18,500 in the main Estimate.

Mr. Ede: That was not shown in any Vote presented to the House.

Sir P. Sassoon: It was in the main Estimate last year.

Mr. Benn: In what page of the main Estimates?

Mr. Ede: I want to be quite clear on this matter. I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that in the main Estimates there was such a sum, but that it was regarded as being so small a total that it was lumped with other sums, and nobody could complain about that. If we had every sub-head against which the right hon. Gentleman's clerks of works had to show their costs the books that would have to be presented to us would be too voluminous for even my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) to study in his spare time, although I have no doubt he would do his best to do so. Was this figure of £18,500, which the right hon. Gentleman now tells us was the figure of which this £20,000 is the excess Vote, disclosed in any form which made it clear to the House that the Post Office had been expecting an expenditure on air-raid precautions. If we can get that statement from the right

hon. Gentleman, I am sure we shall be able to assess how far the Post Office had anticipated this kind of expenditure having to be incurred.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I am very much interested in the saving of £2,000 under sub-head "M—Fuel, Gas, Electric Current and Water." I would like to know whether it has been an actual saving in consumption or in the price per ton of coal that has been purchased.

Sir P. Sassoon: It is in consumption.

Mr. Griffiths: At our house we have been burning a lot more coal than we did before, because it has been as cold as death. I cannot understand it. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman has not been starving the Post Office workers. I hope not. He says that they have saved £7,000 in consumption. I am pleased that they have been a little economical this time, but I am sorry that it has been economy at the expense of the colliers.

Mr. Ede: May I have an answer to the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman perfectly courteously and explicitly? I continued speaking, as a matter of fact, so as to give time for the information to be brought to the right hon. Gentleman from that Box. I tried to help him to that extent, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will say which item is the one in which the £18,500 was to be found?

Sir P. Sassoon: It does not actually appear separately, but it is included on page 78 of the main Estimates—"Post Office and Telegraph Buildings. P.—Maintenance and Repairs, £564,875." The provision of £27,000 was made in the original Estimates for Customs and Inland Revenue and Post Offices. In addition an expenditure of about £180,000 is being met from the Post Office Loan.

Mr. Benn: For air-raid precautions?

Sir P. Sassoon: For this purpose.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue. Post Office and telegraph buildings


in Great Britain, certain post offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with boats and launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health; including grants, a grant-in-aid and other expenses in connection with housing, certain grants to local authorities, etc., a grant-in-aid to the National Radium Trust, grants-in-aid in respect of national health insurance benefits, etc., certain expenses in connection with widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions; a grant-in-aid of the Civil Service Sports Council; and other services.

8.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): This Supplementary Estimate is to meet a grant-in-aid to the National Radium Trust. The circumstances were fully explained by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading of the Cancer Bill, and I am sure the Committee would not want me to repeat what he said on that occasion. Clause 3 of the Cancer Bill contains provisions for the Minister to lend money to the National Radium Trust for the purchase of radium and other radio-therapeutic elements. The Trust have arranged to purchase 18 grammes of radium which they now hold on loan from a Canadian company, and to pay for it by 12 monthly instalments. The amount to be provided by this Supplementary Estimate is the sum needed to enable the Radium Trust to pay four instalments which will become due before the end of the year.

Mr. Foot: I think we ought to have a little more explanation. At the bottom of page 17 there is a Note which says that this is a Supplementary Estimate of the amount required for the year ending the 31st March, 1939. On page 18 there is a Note which says:
Clause 3 of the Cancer Bill provides that the Minister may lend money to the National Radium Trust within a limit of £500,000 and on conditions to be determined by the Treasury.
Apparently, it is in anticipation of that particular Clause of the Bill that this sum is to be voted. But the Cancer Bill has

not yet received the assent of Parliament. Why, then, are we asked to vote this sum of money in advance of the Bill being passed? It is surely not the business of the Department to anticipate the decision which this House or the other place may come to on any Bill now before Parliament. There ought to be a further word of explanation on Note 2, which appears on page 18. That Note says:
Expenditure out of this grant-in-aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but the accounts of the National Radium Trust are audited by him in accordance with Treasury directions given under the Royal Charter of the Trust.
Surely, that is a departure from our usual practice, and we ought to have an explanation about it. It is provided that the accounts of the National Radium Trust are to be audited under Treasury direction, and it is necessary that the Committee should know why expenditure under the grant-in-aid is not to be accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General in what I take to be the ordinary way. I think the Minister should also say something in regard to the last sentence of Note 2, where it says:
Any balance of the sum issued from this Vote which may remain unexpended at 31st March, 1939, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer.

Mr. Bernays: The auditing point is a very technical question and I am afraid I could hardly answer in detail on that very complex matter. The accounts are, in fact, audited by the Comptroller and Audtor General. With regard to the main point of the hon. Member, that we are asking for money in advance of the passing of the Bill, I think that is made clear in the Note at the end of the Vote, which says:
The provision in this Estimate is subject to statutory authority being obtained in accordance with the terms of the Cancer Bill now before Parliament.
We have also the Financial Resolution which has been passed.

Mr. Foot: The Financial Resolution is only brought forward to enable the Bill to proceed. Is there any precedent for asking us to vote money in this way before a Measure has received Parlimentary assent? On the point in regard to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it is perfectly obvious from the Note that the two accounts will be audited by the same


person, who in each case is the Comptroller and Auditor-General. If that be so, why should he not audit these accounts in precisely the same way as any other expenditure by a Government Department?

Mr. Bernays: In regard to the hon. Member's point that there is no precedent for this, I do not think he can really substantiate that. There is a precedent for instance, in the Essential Commodities (Reserve) Bill, Clause 6, which says that it is:
Subject to statutory authority being obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Essential Commodities (Reserve) Bill now before Parliament.
I think the hon. Member will find that this has been frequently done before.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I think the Parliamentary Secretary has been most unfortunate in his selection of a precedent. The Essential Commodities (Reserve) Bill dealt with a flagrant defiance of the practice of Parliament. The Government spent money without authority and then came to this House for an indemnity. I do not know what the position is if the Bill is not passed, but I presume—I am not certain—that the money goes back into the Sinking Fund; I do not know whether the estimate itself would give authority for the money. Whatever the Government may have in mind, the fact remains that they are not only the most extravagant Government that ever was, but the slackest also as regards the control of expenditure, and the most flagrant so far as the defiance of Parliamentary rules is concerned. The hon. Member gives as a precedent a case where money was spent without any Parliamentary authority and a Bill of indemnity had to be introduced to indemnify the Minister.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend. When dealing with the Essential Commodities Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House that that action was owing to the exceptional nature of the transaction and the fact that it was necessary to get hold of these commodities without anybody in this country or outside knowing about it, and that it would never be quoted as a precedent for spending money without Parlia-

mentary sanction; yet within 12 months of the Chancellor of the Exchequer standing at that Box and giving us that assurance, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health calmly brings that forward to justify this particular expenditure.
I would press the matter a little further. Do the Government mean to get the Cancer Bill? If they do not, this Vote to-night is a sheer waste of time. I have been asked to go to the Ministry of Health to-morrow morning to discuss Amendments to that Bill, and I have been told in advance that from the point of view of the Minister I can take the responsibility or not of killing the Bill, and that if I insist on certain Amendments the Government will not find time for the Measure, which must go through as a non-contentious Bill. If the Government are in the position of telling that to the County Councils Association, who have put down Amendments in the names of two. hon. Members opposite and two hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and if that is all the interest they have in that Bill, why should they come here to-night and ask for this Vote? Why not wait to see what the answer is to our Amendments to-morrow?

8.54 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The hon. Member wants an assurance as to whether we mean to get the Cancer Bill. Yes. We mean to get the Bill, and certainly we are going to get it. As to whether I am claiming this as a precedent, I am not. My hon. Friend was asked for an analogy. He was asked whether this had ever been done before, and he gave the analogy. I am ready to justify this Vote on the face of it and on the strength of it. I make no apology. It is money that will be well spent for the curing of disease, and I make no apology for it.

Mr. Foot: This Vote is for the amount that will be required to the 31st March, 1939. Presumably, the Minister may have some difficulty in getting his Bill on to the Statute Book by the 31st March, 1939. Why then, is it necessary to bring this Supplementary Estimate forward now?

Mr. Elliot: Because I do not want to waste five minutes more than necessary. If I have the Bill on the Statute Book before the 31st March I do not want to


waste five minutes before putting it into operation. Some 6,000 people died between the Second Reading of the Bill and the time that it got to the Committee stage, and I am not going to waste any time in seeing that these people get the assistance. I want to make sure that they will get it as quickly as possible.

8.55 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: I am not sure whether I understood the Minister to say that he had obtained some sort of option over the radium. If that is correct, may I ask whether this sum of £27,000 is required in any way in regard to that option; and also what statutory authority there was for the Ministry to enter into an option and pay any money for it at all. I should like to know whether anything was paid for the option. I observe that in the first footnote there is power to lend money to the National Radium Trust on conditions to be determined by the Treasury. Presumably, before any of this £27,000 is expended the conditions will have been denned by the Treasury. I should like to know what those conditions are. Then there is one technical matter. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain exactly the purpose, in this particular instance, of the statement in the last sentence of the second Note that the unexpended balance will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer.

Mr. Elliot: On the last point, the technical point raised by the hon. and gallant Member, I will leave the Parliamentary Secretary to answer. As to the position of the option, the hon. and gallant Member will remember that when I spoke on the Bill I made it clear that the option had been obtained by the Radium Trust and not by the Government.

Mr. Bernays: The Note to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred relates to the contribution of the Treasury to the cost of sickness benefit under National Health Insurance. The Treasury's contribution is one-seventh of the expenditure in respect of men and one-fifth in respect of women, and the total sum varies with the amount of the expenditure required for the year. The amount required for the year is now known and proves to be slightly less than anticipated— £5,455,000 instead of £5,485,000. If the saving could not be used for the Supplementary Estimate it

would, of course, have to be returned to the Exchequer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health; including grants, a grant in aid and other expenses in connection with housing, certain grants to local authorities, etc., a grant in aid to the National Radium Trust, grants in aid in respect of National Health Insurance benefits, etc., certain expenses in connection with widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions; a grant in add of the Civil Service Sports Council; and other services.

CLASS IV.

BROADCASTING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for a grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

8.59 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I am sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench will envy me my task in introducing this non-controversial Supplementary Estimate. I am not asking the Committee to provide more money; I am merely asking to be allowed to make a readjustment of the amount to the British Broadcasting Corporation. If they will look at the Estimate on page 18, they will find the explanation given. The sale of wireless receiving licences for the year ending 31st March, 1939, is now expected to exceed the figure on which the original Estimate was based. In other words, it is a purely automatic increase and does not provide for any increase in the percentage allotted to the B.B.C. Under Section 20 of the Agreement which was made with the B.B.C. 75 per cent. of the net licence revenue, after deducting the Post Office share of 9 per cent. for collection and other expenses, is payable to the B.B.C. Under the same Section the B.B.C. may receive such additional percentage of the net licence revenue as the Treasury may deem necessary for developing the services. In the original Estimate, 15 per cent. was provided for the Treasury for that purpose, which is to assist the B.B.C. to develop the television services and also the foreign language


broadcasting services. It was originally estimated that there would be 8,800,000 licences in force by 31st March, and 75 per cent. of the net licence revenue, that would amount to £,3,030,000, with an additional 15 per cent. voted by this House to £610,000, making a total of£3,640,000. This is one of the penalties of success, and I have to come to the Committee to ask them to allow me to alter the estimate of the number of licences to 9,000,000, which is what we estimate now will be the total number, with the result that an additional £41,500 will be required to meet the 75 per cent. share, the arrangement under the agreement, and an additional £8,500 to meet the 15 per cent. share which was agreed to by the House some time ago. It is only a matter of adjustment. More people have taken out licences than was anticipated, and the percentage grant to the B.B.C. must, of course, be increased, otherwise we should not be keeping our bargain with them. It is necessary to ask the permission of the Committee to allow this money to be paid over.

Question put, and agreed to.

BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,370, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the British Museum (Natural History), including a grant-in-aid.

9.4 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): Hon. Members will find an explanation of this Supplementary Estimate on page 17. It is simply a corollary of the Bill which I had the honour to present to the House last July to enable the British Museum to take over the munificent bequest of the late Lord Rothschild of his museum at Tring. The museum was taken over by the trustees of the British Museum on 21st September last year, and in consequence of the acceptance of the bequest the taxpayer has become liable for the running cost of the museum to the end of the financial year. That involves a charge upon normal sub-heads of approximately £1,800. In addition to these the trustees are responsible, as I explained during the Second Reading of the Bill, for the Estate

Duty and Succession Duty on the bequest of a sum of £3,500, and they are also responsible for reimbursing the outlay of the executors of the late Lord Rothschild in running this museum between the time of his death and the time it was actually taken over by the trustees. The total of those items is £9,900, which has been offset by a small saving of £530, making the Estimate £9,370. I hope that with that explanation the Committee will agree to this Supplementary Estimate. Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS V.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year finding on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Old Age Pensions, pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith.

9.6 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I do not know whether there is any hon. Member in any part of the Committee who is looking forward to the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate in order to discuss general questions in connection with Old Age Pensions, but perhaps I shall save the time of the Committee if I say at the beginning that this Supplementary Estimate, which I shall explain very briefly—although, of course, I shall endeavour to answer any questions upon it—is a purely mechanical Estimate. It gives authority for paying out money to the number of people who happen to be alive in any given quarter or any given day when payment is due, and who are entitled to the pension. The main Old Age Pensions Vote is simply a calculation that is originally made each year in January of the prospective number of persons who will be entitled to draw a pension during the next financial year. It has nothing to do with contributory pensions proper which come under another Vote. This Vote covers three different kinds of people: First, non-contributory people over 70 years of age. Secondly, the people who have been in the contributory scheme, but who have passed the age of 70; from 65 to 70 these people are paid under the contributory pensions Vote and on reaching 70, although they are still drawing a pension in virtue of their right under the contributory scheme- and do not have to


pass a means test, they pass on to this Vote. And thirdly, blind pensioners.

Mr. Ridley: Does this mean that there are more people alive than you had expected?

Captain Wallace: The hon. Member has put the whole matter in a word. I was wondering whether I might go on to explain the whole thing in that way.

An Hon. Member: They lived overtime.

Mr. Ridley: You thought that they would not survive your Government, but they did.

Captain Wallace: We are obliged to frame an Estimate every year in January, and as a first step, the Government actuary estimates the probable number of people who will be alive and eligible to draw a pension at the beginning of the next financial year, which begins on 1st April. This is based on the ascertained number whom we know were drawing a pension on 31st December, adjusted on the one side for the people who will become 70 during the next quarter and on the other side for the people who are expected to die. When the Estimate was made for the current financial year, in January, 1938, it was followed by a quarter—the first quarter of last year— in which, perhaps owing to the beneficial activities of this Government, mortality among old people was less than had been expected. In consequence, this Vote started off very badly on 1st April by having 4,207 more pensioners entitled to payment than we had calculated there would be. That excess was due to the unexpectedly low deathrate during the first quarter of last year. The deathrate continued to be low during the year; people were living overtime, as an hon. Member said, and it was particularly so in the December quarter; and the number of pensions in payment at the end of December, 1938, was not 4,207 in excess of the number we had expected, but 9,500. We are bound to make up the Estimates for these Votes in January— unfortunately perhaps, in the sense that between January and March we have the quarter which is most difficult to forecast. Usually it is this quarter in which there is the heaviest mortality, but it is also the quarter in which there are the most violent fluctuations.
As an indication of the fineness of precision required for this forecast, I have

discovered that a variation of one-tenth of 1 per cent. between the forecast and the actual facts results in a difference of about 1,800 pensioners. It would be absolutely true to say, as the hon. Member said, that this Supplementary Estimate is due to the fact that a good many old-age pensioners have exceeded their actuarial expectation of life. As they have exceeded it, the Government obviously have to pay the pensions, and this Supplementary Estimate enables them to do so.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made a very interesting statement about contributory pensions, that when a person is 65 he gets the pension, and that when he becomes 70 and a day, he draws an old-age pension.

Captain Wallace: Perhaps I may make it clear——

Mr. Griffiths: I am clear about that, but there is another point that I want to put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Suppose that an old-age pensioner has a wife who is six years younger than he is, when she becomes 65 does she get a contributory pension when he is drawing an old-age pension?

Captain Wallace: What I said in the earlier part of my remarks was that when people who have been drawing a contributory pension between the ages of 65 and 70 reach the age of 70, simply as a matter of accounting convenience, instead of being paid under the Contributory Pensions Vote, they are transferred to this Old Age Pensions Vote. Of course, on a Supplementary Estimate I cannot discuss whether or not those people would have a title to a pension. It is purely a question of paying them out of this Vote.

Mr. Griffiths: The question I asked was this: If a wife is not 65 years of age and her husband is transferred from the non-contributory pension to the old-age pension, and she becomes 65 after he has become 70, is she then entitled to 10s. a week contributory pension because of her husband, or is she not entitled to it because she is not in the contributory scheme?

Captain Wallace: It does not make the slightest difference. If she was entitled to a contributory pension on reaching the


age of 65, the fact of her husband being paid on this Vote would not deprive her of her title.

Colonel Nathan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told the House that there are three classes of pensions in question—non-contributory pensions, contributory pensions, and blind persons' pensions. He has given us figures showing the increase in the number of old-age pensions. I should like to ask whether there has been an increase or a decrease in the contributory pensions and the blind persons' pensions; in other words, how is the £200,000 distributed among the three classes of pensions?

The Chairman: I would point out that contributory pensions do not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Dunn: May I put a question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? Suppose that a wife has passed the age of 70 and her husband is under 65, and up to the age of 65 she has contributed to the National Health Insurance scheme, what exactly would be the position of the wife, as far as the pension is concerned?

Captain Wallace: I do not think I can answer the last question which has been put to me, except to say that the mere fact that on the day on which the wife becomes 70 the actual mechanical process of payment is transferred from one Vote to the other does not make any difference to the title of her husband to a pension. As regards the question that was asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Wands worth (Colonel Nathan), I am sorry I cannot give him the actual division of the money between the different classes of pensioners. What I can give him are the figures of the total number of pensioners at different times of the year; but I think the Committee will probably be satisfied if I undertake to let the hon. and gallant Member or any hon. Member who cares to put down a written question on the subject, have those details. I am sure it would be possible to get out the figures but I have not got them with me.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I ask for your guidance, Sir Dennis, in regard to the statement that this Vote does not cover contributory pensions? The footnote

states that the additional provision is required to meet the payment of pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act and, it adds, "the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act." Is not this provision also required for purposes of contributory pensions?

The Chairman: I think the words "contributory pensions" only come in as part of the Title of the Act referred to.

Captain Wallace: As I tried to explain already, people who have been under the contributory scheme between the ages of 65 and 70, when they become 70 continue to be paid in the same way as previously but for purposes of accountancy the payment, instead of being borne on the Contributory Pensions Vote, is borne on the Old Age Pensions Vote.

Mr. Smith: But both Acts are involved in this Supplementary Estimate.

Captain Wallace: Only in so far as people who come on to this Estimate at the age of 70 do so by virtue of having been contributory pensioners.

Mr. Ridley: Would the Minister make the matter a little more clear by dealing with the question of the proportion of the contribution which the State has to bear, namely, one-fifth in the case of men, and one-seventh in the case of women? If that is not related to contributory pensions, to what else can it be related?

Captain Wallace: In dealing with this Supplementary Estimate we are not dealing with contributory pensions at all, but merely with certain recipients of pensions who have passed out of the realm of contributory pensions into that of old age pensions. This Vote simply represents a method of paying people who have acquired titles to pensions, either by having paid contributions or who, not having paid contributions, have qualified for the old-age pension under the Statute.

Mr. Ridley: Then what was meant by the reference to the proportions of one-fifth and one-seventh?

Captain Wallace: I have not mentioned those proportions.

Mr. Tinker: This is rather confusing. The sum required is £200,000 which is to be added to a sum of £47,000,000, and I thought that covered both contributory and old-age pensions. The Financial


Secretary tells us that it does not, but I wish to put several questions to him. I would like him to give the Committee the total number of old-age pensioners who are drawing this money. He tells us that the extra number of people is 9,000, but the total amount is £200,000, and assuming that each person is getting £26 a year, I work that out at under 8,000 persons. That leads me to ask whether some of these people are not entitled to the full amount. If so, are they being paid less than the full amount as a result of the application of the means test? In that case it is to be assumed that some of these people have means of their own. On the other hand, if these people are all entitled to the £26 a year that brings us to another point which is perhaps more important namely that £26 a year brings them on to the poverty line. The figures which we have had before hand, tell us that at least 10 per cent. of those in receipt of the full amount of old-age pensions have to go to the poor law authorities——

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now going into a matter which is quite outside this Vote. The Financial Secretary has explained very clearly that this Supplementary Estimate arises simply and solely from the fact that an estimate which in the nature of things could only be an estimate, has turned out to be short of the amount actually ascertained, though only by a relatively trifling amount. The reason for this is that there was an increase over a certain period in the number of persons entitled to pensions. We cannot go into the whole question of the original Vote.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: May I put a question to the Minister which may make this point clear? Do the 9,000 persons referred to in the Estimate, draw their pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, or is their right to pension based on the provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act? Is this, in other words, merely a book-keeping transaction, or a change in the basis of these claims to pension?

Captain Wallace: May I deal first with the point just raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He must not think that this is only a question of 9,000 people, because the number is very much more than that. The 9,000 is the excess

of the actual number over the estimated number. This also enables me to answer at least a part of the question put by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The total number who come under this Vote, that is the people in the three classes, namely, contributory pensioners over 70, non-contributory pensioners and the blind were expected to number on 1st April, 595,000 non-contributory and 1,189,000 contributory, making a total of 1,784,000 persons. The actual numbers however turned out to be 597,147 non-contributory and 1,191,060 contributory, making a total of 1,788,207. The actual numbers on 31st December, which is the last date for which I can give figures, were non-contributory 589,217 and contributory 1,262,146, making a total of 1,851,363.
Therefore, the total net increase for the first nine months of the present financial year was approximately 5,300 more than expected, and the number of deaths during this period was 3,000 less than we estimated; and the number of contributory pensioners transferring from the 65–70 age group was over 2,000 out. The people in that group who became 70 did not lose their title to the contributory pension, but were simply paid on this Vote instead of the other. It is, therefore, purely a bookkeeping transaction. If the hon. Member would like me to do so, I can give him the figures for 31st December divided between contributory and non-contributory pensions, and also divided between England, Wales and Scotland, but I think that to read out a great many figures of that kind would not be of much help to the Committee. I would suggest that if hon. Members would like any statistical information with regard to this Estimate they should be good enough to put down an Unstarred Question, and I should be glad to give the information in tabular form. I have not the slightest wish to burke discussion; it is only for the convenience of the Committee.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has explained that the pensioner receiving a contributory pension when he becomes 70 years of age goes on to the non-contributory pension fund. But if the wife is 68 years old, out of what pension fund is she paid?

Captain Wallace: Until the wife is actually 70 she is paid out of another


Vote, namely, Class V. Vote 7, and it so happens that on that Vote this year we have not had to ask for a Supplementary Estimate.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: A Debate on a Supplementary Estimate is necessarily very narrow and restricted, but there is one material point that I wish to make. There have been many general Debates in this House on old age pensions, and I do not now intend to reproach the Government on the inadequacy of old age pensions. The Financial Secretary has been at great pains to explain that old age pensions are not expected to cover all material requirements of pensioners —they are only supplementary to their income. This Supplementary Estimate to-night is required by the increase of longevity, which goes on year by year; it is not due to the beneficence of this Government.

The Chairman: This Vote has nothing to do with anything connected with the increase of longevity. It is merely an increase above what a certain Department expected.

Mr. Ridley: I understood the Financial Secretary agreed with me that the Estimate was required because more people managed to survive than this Government expected. That means that there has been an increase of longevity. I will not pursue the point, as I have made it to my own satisfaction.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Batey: Last year we discussed a Supplementary Estimate on the same Vote of £187,000. This year it is £200,000. When I noticed how close these figures were I asked what was the reason of it, and I thought the reason was that it was difficult for the Government to give an Estimate of how many widows and other beneficiaries would be paid out of the fund during the year. But the Financial Secretary has swept that away altogether. He says this Vote deals, not with widows, but only with old age pensioners, aged 65 to 70, who are passing out of the class in receipt of contributory pensions into the non-contributory class over 70 years of age. If that is the case it seems to me that there should be no need for a Supplementary Estimate every year. We have been

urging the Government to make an inquiry into this question. If they did so, they would be able to ascertain exactly how many old age pensioners would pass from one class into the other. That should not be at all difficult because they have got the ages of all pensioners, they know the time when they come into the contributory pension class, and they know exactly how many old age pensioners will reach 70 years of age. They ought to be able to deal in the original Estimate with the whole number of old age pensioners who would receive pensions during the year. One is beginning to feel that the Government are dealing with pensions, as they are dealing with one or two other matters, in too narrow a way. They want to cut the original pension down too finely and too low, and because of that they have to come year after year for a Supplementary Estimate. If the Financial Secretary would have an inquiry into this question of old age pensioners, these Supplementary Estimates would be totally unnecessary.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I listened to what I thought was a very lucid explanation of this Supplementary Estimate by the Financial Secretary, and he did not leave me under any doubt as to the class of people to whom this Estimate would apply. It was clear that the pensioners have lived longer than was anticipated, and that a large number have passed the scriptural span. But I am a new Member of this House, and I am trying to find out something of Parliamentary procedure and practice, I wanted to move as an Amendment that the Estimate should be increased from £200,000 to £30,000,000. As I understand that is not possible, I move that the Vote be reduced by £100 in order to put forward my case.

The Chairman: I should be very glad to teach the hon. Gentleman something of Parliamentary practice. I understand that the Amendment he proposes is based on a question of policy, and as such it is entirely out of order. That could only come on the main Estimate and not on a small Supplementary Estimate, which is merely to correct the Estimate to the actual amount as ascertained.

Mr. Dunn: Should I not be in order in moving that the Estimate be reduced by £100?

The Chairman: No, not after what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Batey: Surely, Sir Dennis, we have a right to move a reduction in the Vote, and after what I have said with regard to the Government not being able to estimate properly, and because of the whole Government policy in regard to these people, I would like to move to reduce the Vote by£5.

The Chairman: When the hon. Member spoke before he sat down just at the time when I was going to rule

Mr. Batey: I was watching you, Sir Dennis.

The Chairman: —when I was going to rule that what he was saying was out of order. He has now entirely given his case away and shown that he is out of order, because he has referred to the policy and action of the Government. This Supplementary Estimate really has nothing whatever to do with the policy, the administration, or any action by the Government. It results simply and solely from the actual impossibility, which everyone must admit, of discovering the exact time at which one or more out of a million pensioners are going to die. Quite

frankly, I cannot see that anything much is in order on this Estimate, strictly speaking, unless it be to congratulate the Department on getting their Estimate within one-half of I per cent. of what actually happened.

Mr. Dunn: On a point of Order. Then the only thing that appears to be wrong, according to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, is the fact that these people have lived to be over 70 years of age?

The Chairman: No. The hon. Member puts it to me as a point of Order, which it is not, but in so far as it is a matter of explaining or correcting the hon. Member's impression of what I said, it is just the other way round. The mistake is not in the time these people live; it is in the calculation made by the Department which made the Estimate.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £5.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £199,995, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 146.

Division No. 53.]
AYES.
[9.38 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gosst, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batty, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Silkin, L.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Walson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Adams, S. V. G. (Leeds, W.)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bull, B. B.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Burghley, Lord
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Aske, Sir R. W
Butcher, H. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Cox, H. B. Trevor


Balfour G, (Hampstead)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Craven-Ellis, W.


Bernays, R. H.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.




Cross, R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Scott, Lord William


Davits, C. (Montgomery)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Donner, P. W.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Lewis, O.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Liddall, W. S,
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lindsay, K, M.
Smithers, Sir W.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Somervall, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lyons, A. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spens, W. P.


Foot, D. M.
McKie, J. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwish)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gledhill, G.
Medlicott, F.
Sutclifle, H.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Moors, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Thorncycroft, G. E. P.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Turton, R. H.


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Munro, P.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wallace, Capt. Rt, Hon. Euan


Hambro, A. V.
Owen, Major G.
Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hammersley, S. S.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Ward, Irena M. B. (Wallsand)


Hannah, I. C.
Patherick, M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Unlv's.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rankin, Sir R.
White, H. Graham


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Holdsworth, H.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Willoughby do Eresby, Lord


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hopkinson, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Horsbrugh, Florance
Romer, J. R.
Womarsley, Sir W. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
York, C.


Hunloke, H. P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hunter, T.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.



Hutchinson, G. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Mr. Furness and Major Sir James


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salt, E. W.
Edmondson.


Keeling, E. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.



Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for Old Age Pensions, pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith.

CLASS VII.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £611,200 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1939, for stationery, printing, paper, binding and printed books for the public service; for the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including reports of Parliamentary Debates.

9.48 p.m.

Captain Wallace: If Members of the Committee will look at page 31 of the Supplementary Estimate they will see this rather large Estimate set out under the different headings, and on the following pages they will see a considerable amount of detailed information in regard to them.
It seems to me that the only thing I can do, on the assumption that all Members of the Committee have read the White Paper is to deal with the items under a classification relating to the different Government Departments. £38,200 is due to the necessity for additional staff, overtime and improved scales of pay. The actual amount of this Estimate which can be put down as definitely due to the emergency of last September is £83,000. As a result of that emergency it was decided to hold in reserve greater stocks of different kinds in view of possible further emergency requirements; there were departmental stocks of £60,500 and extra Stationery Office stocks of £86,000.
Another item which goes to make up this figure is a sum of £60,000 for requirements in connection with National Service. Increased requirements for the sale of publications, including Air-Raid Precautions Department, Home Office and Admiralty, amount to £46,000. Then there is £20,000 for additional requirements of public Departments in connection with Press advertising. Additional plant required by the Stationery Office Printing Works, which has been very


hard pressed lately, cost £24,000. There is an increased requirement of £259,500 which I have not been able to sort out and classify, for public Departments generally, including £197,000 for the defence services and Post Office, leaving £62,500 for other Departments. These add up to the formidable total of £677,200, which is offset to the extent of £66,000 by extra appropriations-in-aid under sub-head M. The largest amount in that sum is£40,000 due to the increased sale of Government publications, Parliamentary and other. In view of the amount of information that is in the Estimate perhaps the Committee will be satisfied with that explanation. It will be in the minds of Members that the Stationery Office have had a great deal of extra work to do lately.

9.52 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: In an entirely non-controversial spirit I should like to ask for one or two explanations on points of detail. I would like to know, with regard to item K, capital expenditure on purchase of machinery, where that machinery has been installed, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can give me the information with due regard to the public interest. In the event of an emergency it might be desirable for the Stationery Office to have certain plant elsewhere than in London. I would not ask where it is, but whether this is an addition to the plant which the Stationery Office has in London or whether it is in some place outside London. I think that that information could be given without any detriment to the public interest. Is there in the Estimate any provision for plant and storage outside London for the purpose of the Stationery Office? Under subhead N,£3,000 additional is required for voters' lists and registers. Why has that extra amount been required, because I should have thought that a precise calculation could have been made of that item.
I observe that there has been an increase from the sale of Parliamentary Debates by £500. Every hon. Member will be glad to know that the public is taking so great an interest in the proceedings of this House, but it would be interesting to know whether that extra £500 for sales was due to any particular period of the year. Was it, for instance, due to public interest during the crisis of a few months ago, or to an increased

sale spread generally over the year and thereby showing a generally enhanced interest? I was taken aback by the £4,000 additional for the sale of Patent Office publications. Is there any particular reason why the Patent Office should suddenly have leapt into public favour as a publishing concern? The additional £4,000 must be quite a large proportion of the receipts for Patent Office publications. Was there any particular reason for that increase?

9.55 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I will try to answer the hon. and gallant Member's questions as well as I can, but he will realise that if he had spoken a little longer he would have given me more time to get the information. So far as the additional plant under Sub-head K is concerned, I will not go so far as to say that it is all in London, but I can say that the plant is in the London area, and that there is no machinery with which this Supplementary Estimate is concerned outside the London area. The increase in respect of voters' lists is due to the growth in the numbers of voters in certain districts. When a new housing estate is established it means a large transfer of voters and more expense arises in that way. With regard to the Patent Office publications, I can only say, subject to correction, that I think the increase is very largely due to the fact that last year we passed two Acts dealing with patent laws, and that has meant the bringing of certain publications up to date; but I answer that question with reserve. As to the increased sales of Government publications, here, again, I cannot give any precise figures, but as this is obviously a largish sum to be in a Supplementary Estimate I think the Committee will not be far wrong in drawing the inference that the sales have taken place during more recent months.

Colonel Nathan: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give any reason for the increase of £500 from the sale of Parliamentary Debates? That is a separate item which I mentioned. It is a matter of some importance, because it is interesting to know that the public are taking greater interest in our proceedings.

Captain Wallace: All I can say is that it would appear that the increased sales of Parliamentary Debates is due to the increased interest which people are taking


in the proceedings in this House, and that is a matter upon which we in all parties can congratulate ourselves. Long may it continue.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Cartland: I apologise to my right hon. and gallant Friend for not being present when he introduced this Supplementary Estimate, but I have one question to put to him arising out of items A and B. I should like to know whether some of the loss which has been made and the extra overtime which has to be worked is not due to the fact that there is no Stationery Office in the second city in the kingdom, which is Birmingham, and whether he has considered that this loss might not have arisen if he had been able to arrange for a Stationery Office to be opened there.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£611,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for stationery, printing, paper, binding and printed books for the public service; for the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including reports of Parliamentary Debates.

CLASS VI.

CLEARING OFFICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-Rumanian, Anglo-Italian and Anglo-Turkish Clearing Offices.

10.0 p.m.

Captain Wallace: There are, I think, two main reasons for this small Supplementary Estimate of £2,400. The original Estimate for the Clearing Offices, which, of course, ought to pay for themselves, was based on the assumption that we should have more payments under the Italian Clearing Agreement. Owing to trade not being quite so good as we had hoped during the latter part of last year the payments were only £6,000,000 instead of the estimated £7,000,000, with the result that commission, which we had estimated would amount to £52,500, turned out to be only £45,000. That made

in itself a shortage of £7,500, or more than would be required for the Supplementary Estimate. There was another factor, and that was that the Estimates for the current financial year were made up on the assumption that the Spanish Clearing Office would resume operations, and would be going for nine months and producing £33,750 by way of commission. Owing to the continuance of the war in Spain the clearing was not resumed, and the actual receipts were nil. Altogether, therefore, expenditure was reduced by £16,500 and the receipts which we should have appropriated in aid were reduced by £18,900, involving this Supplementary Estimate of £2,400. This £2,400 is not lost to the taxpayers for as and when clearings are resumed they will get it back. The principle of all these clearings is that commission should be charged at a rate which is just sufficient to recoup the Department for the expenses to which it is put.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson: I understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the principal difference in the figures was due to the deficiency in the Anglo-Italian clearances. Are we to understand that that is because we have done less trade with Italy, or because the Italian Government have not seen fit to make the necessary payments?

Captain Wallace: I think the reason is that we have not done so much trade. I do not think there have been any increased delays in the Italian clearing. As hon. Members know, there is always a certain amount of delay. The money comes in from one side and is not paid out until very careful steps have been taken to make sure that it goes only to those who have a right to it. For that reason the clearings are subject to more or less delay, and I do not think there is any particular reason to suppose that the shortage of receipts compared with the Estimate is due to anything but a diminution of trade.

10.3 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: I am frankly puzzled by the figures which appear on page 21. It is stated that the original Estimate was £85,900 and the revised Estimate is £67,000 and that the additional sum required is £18,900. That seems to be a non sequitur. Unless I have completely misunderstood the figures I should have


expected to see that the original Estimate was £67,000 and the revised Estimate £85,900. Have the figures by any chance been misplaced?

Captain Wallace: The hon. and gallant Member will observe that sub-head D refers to appropriations-in-aid. This was money which we expected to get and that is what makes the figures appear to have been reversed.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-Rumanian, Anglo-Italian and Anglo-Turkish Clearing Offices.

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£2,850, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other law charges, the salaries and expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland."— [Captain Wallace.]

10.6 p.m.

Captain Wallace: This Estimate is due to a combination of circumstances, most of which, although they relate to the Vote for law charges, may more properly and fairly be considered as part of the cost of the rearmament programme. They are almost entirely solicitors conveyancing fees for the acquisition by various Government Departments of different sites and buildings in Scotland for various purposes, for instance, the Admiralty, £129, the Air Ministry, £1,185; the War Department, £2,081; and the Office of Works, £2,631; in all a total of £11,000. That sum is reduced by savings under sub-head K, due to changes among the Sheriff Clerks, Deputies and the clerks in the Sheriff Court service, by the ordinary process of men entering at lower salaries in the place of men who have been drawing the maximum.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson: Are we to understand that the solicitors were specially

employed for the purpose of carrying through these conveyances or that they were salaried officials of the Lord Advocate's Department? With regard to the expenses of courts of law and tribunals, were the tribunals specially set up for the purpose of dealing with these matters, in which case no doubt special fees would have to be paid? In what way was this extra expense incurred, if it be a fact that the tribunals are permanent bodies presided over by salaried officials? It is all very well to ask the Committee to pass these amounts, but we are entitled to know whether the expenditure was incurred by reason of special fees charged by special solicitors or in what way the additional expense was incurred by the Departments concerned.

10.9 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): The answer to the first question is that firms of solicitors in ordinary practice are employed by the various Government Departments on the usual professional terms. Those fees are not paid to persons in the full-time or part-time service of the Government but to ordinary firms of solicitors. Each of the Departments has a firm of solicitors specially assigned to it, but remunerated in the ordinary way. I think a misunderstanding underlays the second question, because no part of the Supplementary Estimate arises from extra charges in connection with courts of law or tribunals. The saving of £2,000 is attributed to charges of the courts of law, and was achieved through junior officials succeeding senior officials at lower rates of salary. The whole of the extra charge put into the Estimate is coupled up with the additional conveyances.

Mr. Henderson: I take it that there are officials deputed to check the various costs of the firms of solicitors.

The Lord Advocate: I could not answer that question in detail, but all the items are set out in that table and are liable to be checked by the ordinary courts of session.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, EXCESS, 1937.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to make good an


Excess on the Grant for the Foreign Office for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1938:

Class and Vote.
 Amount to be Voted.


Class II
.£ 
s. 
d.


Vote 1. Foreign Office …
10
0
 0."

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

10.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Assemblies) (Amendment) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
The Indian Delimitation Committee presided over by the late Sir Laurie Hammond discussed in considerable detail the voting system which was to apply to constituencies returning more than one member. Three alternatives were suggested, the single, non-transferable vote, the distributive method and the cumulative method. The Committee recommended the cumulative vote, by which voters have as many votes as there are seats to be filled and distributes them exactly how he likes. This system was described in paragraph 15, Part I, of the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Assemblies) Order, 1936. This system of voting has recently come under discussion in the Madras Legislative Assembly, on the Motion of a member of the scheduled classes. The Assembly, with the assent of the Provincial Governor, has unanimously recommended that the distributive system be substituted for the cumulative system in the general constituencies in Madras. This is clearly a matter on which the considered opinion of the Legislative Assembly should be given due weight, particularly as in this case there appears to be no question of its operating adversely to a minority. The new paragraph 1A of Part II, which will relate exclusively to the Province of Madras, will constitute what is technically an "express provision to the contrary" for the purpose of paragraph 16 of Part I.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Waterhouse.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT,1935.

10.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (India-Burma Financial Settlement) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Under Section 134 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, His Majesty in Council is empowered to make provision for payment by Burma to India of the sums necessary to liquidate an equitable proportion of the net liability between the two countries at the time of the separation. In May, 1925, the Secretary of State presented to Parliament, as Command Paper 4912 of that year, the Report of the Tribunal under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) which was appointed to formulate certain principles which were to govern this payment. In accordance with those principles, a committee known as the Application Committee was afterwards charged with the duty of drawing up the actual terms of the settlement. In November, 1936, the Application Committee presented their first interim report, on the basis of which paragraph 3 of the Government of Burma (Miscellaneous Financial Provisions) Order, 1937, was made. During the ensuing year, the two Governments mutually agreed as to the principle on which the charges in respect of pensions were to be met, and that point, therefore, was discharged and consequently excluded. A second interim report was presented in December, 1937, and the Government of Burma (India-Burma Financial Settlement) Order of 1938 was made shortly afterwards.
The figures which were inserted in the Orders in Council of 1937 and 1938 were necessarily provisional, pending a final report as to the amount which was payable on the basis of an annuity for a period of 45 years, and also pending certain financial arrangements with regard to pension payments. The Application Committee have now presented their final report, which deals, as I have just explained, with the 45 years annuity. Under that, the indebtedness of Burma to India at


that date was 50 crores, 79 lakhs, 81,000 rupees, which had been reduced, by provisional payments during the years 1937–38 and 1938–39, to 49 crores, 72 lakhs, 86,558 rupees, on 31st March, 1939. [Hon. Members: "What is the value in sterling? "] Fifty crores represent approximately £38,000,000 sterling. The annuity required for the repayment of this debt, with interest at 3½ per cent., for 43 years from the latter date, is two crores, 24 lakhs, 55,964 rupees, payable in two half-yearly instalments on 30th September and 31st March in each year. That has been accepted by the respective Governments subject to adjustment, and it is accordingly provided for in paragraph 3 (1) of the Draft Order.
The provisions set out in sub-paragraphs 2 and 3, paragraph 3, of the draft, are necessary for various reasons. One is in order to give, under the terms of the Amery Tribunal Report, freedom to the two countries to make the necessary adjustments with regard to payments which may be mutually approved of by them. With regard to pensions, it has now been decided to adopt the principle that a percentage of the pensions paid by the Government of India as a central pensions charge should be refunded by the Government of Burma annually. The formula needed to secure this purpose is under examination with a view to inclusion in a subsequent Order in Council. The paragraph provides, in the exercise of the powers conferred on His Majesty in Council for the charging of the payment on the revenues of Burma. That means to say that the sums payable under the Order will be removed from the vote of the Burma Legislature.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Waterhouse.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

10.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Shan States Federal Fund) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Under Section 68 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, His Majesty in Council is empowered to make provision for the financing of the fund of the Federated Shan States, and for payment from that

fund to the revenues of Burma and vice versa. It was not possible before the Act came into operation to have an Order in Council on a permanent basis. Under the powers conferred by Section 136 of the Act, it has been possible to provide, for a period of two years after 1st April, 1937, that the payment should be settled by the Governor in his discretion. During that period a great deal of thought has been given to the subject, but it has not been found possible to arrive at final conclusions, or it is not thought that it will be found possible to do so before the end of that transitional period, on 31st March of this year. The investigations have been rather complicated. At the moment, a report by the Financial Adviser and the Accountant-General of Burma is being examined by the Governor. That report proposed still only a temporary scheme, but one which will go forward until 1942. Pending a decision by the Governor on that matter, it is necessary to have a further interim provision, particularly as it affects the question of the Burma budget, which is now under consideration, these sums being such that it is desired to make them non-votable. Therefore the arrangement which is contained in the Order under review is merely a temporary arrangement for the coming financial year.

10.24 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I hope I may be in order, within the somewhat narrow rules of a Debate on a Motion such as this, in asking the Government whether the proposals under paragraph 2 of the Draft Order in Council refer to such adjustments as may be necessary in reference to the additional provision that will certainly be required, if my correspondents are correct, with a view to preventing the almost unlimited incursions of Chinese into the Northern Shan States as a consequence of the building of the trunk road from Burma into China. That road has been built on grounds of high policy, and it has penetrated a frontier which for untold centuries has been the frontier of Burma and has been inviolate. According to my information very large numbers of Chinese, much larger than ever before, are entering Burma by this route. The Shan States have a great deal of responsibility for the safety of their frontier and for preventing unauthorised migration


from China into Burma. The Shan States, which are providing here 25 per cent. of their revenue to the fund, are entitled to the very maximum protection and financial assistance from Burma itself to prevent them from being overrun by Chinese coolies in very great numbers, whose entry into Burma will, for the first time, be very greatly facilitated by this road.
The road is of no use to the Shan States. It may be of importance to Burma or it may not, but the need for police protection, Customs, migration officers and for some measure to prevent Chinese entering is of first importance, and I should very much like to know from the Under-Secretary whether or not the Shan States will be indemnified to the full as a result of this temporary provision for any expenses which may be necessary in order to prevent Chinese migration. We are, I fear, going to do for the Shan States what we have done for the State of Burma. In the State of Burma, with the best of intentions, we have allowed 40 per cent. of all the land of Burma to be bought by Indians, who are as alien to Burma as we are to India, and unless very careful measures are taken we may have a great migration of Chinese into the Shan States, which are not really an integral part of Burma. These Chinese may begin acquiring land and settling in great numbers, and the Shan States and Burma may become, like Siam, almost an annex to China as far as population is concerned.
It would be out of order to enlarge on the subject, but I should like some assurance, firstly, that the Government of Burma are fully alive to the very real danger, to which I know public opinion in Burma is beginning to be alive, and, secondly, that the Shan States will not be called upon to pay any part of the expense of maintaining police to prevent the unauthorised migration of Chinese which may follow as a direct result of the building of this quasi-commercial, quasi-political, quasi-strategic road.

10.29 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: My hon. Friend raises a point of wide and considerable interest, and the words with which he ended his speech show the numerous aspects which attend the construction of the road and what it may bring

with it. On the other hand, I think that he will agree that the point in respect of which he wants provision to be made is a hypothetical one. I do not think that anyone suggests at the moment that there is an unusual influx of Chinese or that the particular problems which he envisages are likely to materialise in an acute form during the next 12 months. The matter which we are considering in this Order is purely an arrangement for the next 12 months and does not deal with those particular hypothetical prospects which the hon. Member has raised with regard to the future.

Mr. Benn: Is any part of the cost of this new Burma-China road charged to the revenues of the Shan States?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The question of the expenditure on the roads is not the subject of this Order.

Mr. Benn: That is not the question I asked. I asked whether any part of the cost of building this new Burma-China road is proposed to be charged to the revenues of the Shan States?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, a portion of it. The revenues of the Shan States will contribute part of the cost of the road as well as the revenues of Burma.

Sir A. Wilson: Might I ask the Under-secretary whether he will make specific inquiries so that if I put down a question in six weeks or two months' time he will be able to state what charge will be placed upon the revenues of the Federated Shan States in regard to this road and the cost of police?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I should like to give my hon. Friend any information which I can, but he raises now a question of the cost of the road and the cost of the police, which is rather different from the wider point of the general social implications which he raised originally. I might say that last December I travelled along the road and went into China. Although one met considerable numbers of Chinese on the roads, I was informed —I give the information for what it is worth; it is unofficial—that there were not so many Chinese going over the border this year as last year.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Hope.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords.]

Ordered, "That so much of the Lords Message [28th February] communicating the Resolution, 'That it is desirable that the London Government Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."—[Captain Hope.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Captain Hope.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SPAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Hope.]

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I apologise for keeping the House, but I wish to take the opportunity of putting some further particulars about the loss of the ship "Stangrove," and to ask whether the Government can give us information which it was not possible to give at Question Time. We of the Opposition must take what opportunities the business of the House permits, and, therefore, I am compelled to raise this matter on the first opportunity. I know that Members of the Government have many important tasks to discharge, in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is engaged closely in the Palestine Conference. I do not make any complaint that he is not present. He has explained how he is fixed in regard to business, so that I can quite understand his absence. There is, however, a right hop. Gentleman present who, I understand, will be able to give any answer that may be required.
I am not going to make any comment or criticism on the policy involved in this matter. I am just going to give the simple story based on the information I have been able to ascertain, but if hon. Members who may be better informed than I am will correct me on any detail I will accept the correction. This is the story as I know it of the steamship "Stangrove." She is a small ship of

600 tons and was in command of Captain Richards, who had been for over 30 years engaged on the Spanish trade and had a very fine record. On 2nd February he was in Valencia Harbour, carrying on a business which was perfectly legitimate, and which has never been described as anything but legitimate by the Government. On 5th February having left Valencia Harbour he arrived at Palma, and according to his statement, he was five miles from the coast. This statement is, I understand, accepted by the Government, because they declare that his capture to be illegal. About 7 o'clock in the morning an aeroplane appeared and began to bomb and machine-gun the ship. We may judge what sort of a man Captain Richards was, a man of 68 years of age, because he ordered the officers and the crew to take to the boats in order to be in a position of safety. He remained in charge of his little ship until the danger was over. When the boats returned with the officers and crew in safety they were smashed against the propellor of the ship.
A few hours later he was approached by a Franco warship and a gun was fired across his bows. He was ordered to heave to. On 6th February he was taken from his position on the high seas to Barcelona and when he arrived there was forbidden to communicate with the shore. Later, he was taken to sea again under an armed guard and two days later arrived, I think on the 7th, at Palma. When he arrived there the consul came aboard and interviewed Captain Richards. On 8th February a naval officer came aboard, so that the captain had been in touch with the consul and the naval officer when he was illegally captured. No report reached his owners of this fact. That is a curious thing, because I am told that if the captain of a ship finds himself in any difficulties his first duty is to report to his owners. All we know is that a letter was written by the Foreign Office who made an immediate protest to General Franco. Some days passed, and on 18th February, inquiries were made at Lloyd's and Lloyd's replied from Barcelona—I do not know why from Barcelona—to the owners saying that information concerning the vessel was not allowed. So that between 18th and 23rd February the captain was held captive, although he had been in communication with a naval officer and the consul.
He was held captive from 18th to 23rd February. That was the week in. which His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" assisted in handing over Minorca; it was the week in which some important negotiations must have been taking place with General Franco with regard to recognition. It is a fact that during the week when all this business was going on, this captain was left a captive in his own ship. On 23rd February, he was told that orders had been received for his release—15 days after the Foreign Office had made their protest—and he was told to raise steam. We know what Captain Richards did when his ship was bombed; evidently he was a very determined man. He was a sailor and a captain, and we know that many captains, when their ship is lost, feel that they should be lost with it. There was this old man in his ship, and he was ordered to raise steam. The Under-Secretary of State said that the captain was ordered to raise steam, but that he was not ordered to leave the harbour. Why should a man be ordered to raise steam unless it was intended that he should be ordered to leave harbour?
We do not know whether he had coal to raise steam. The ship is now a wreck on the rocks, and we do not know whether he had coal or not. We do not know whether he did not feel that if he raised steam and left Palma harbour, he would lose the chance of being liberated; he may have thought—we do not know, and he is dead now—that if he left harbour, General Franco would tell him to go to another port, and he would be a prisoner again, on the eve of his liberation. In any case, he did not raise steam. He stayed where he was. The weather was bad, and his ship was dragged. The authorities on shore put up a breeches buoy and rescued 11 or 15 Spaniards who were the crew, and took ashore the officers —I suppose the engineer, the first officer, and perhaps the observer, if there was one on board. But Captain Richards refused to leave his ship. The next day, there was the old man dead, battered, having concussion, and the ship wrecked on the rocks. Those are the facts as far as I know them, although I am open to correction if anybody knows about this case better than I do. I have no comments to make, but I ask the House, which is very fair in its judgment on matters of this sort, whether responsibility for the

death of this very honourable old man does not rest upon those who held him illegally captive until circumstances over which even they had no control produced his end.

10.43 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think the right hon. Gentleman fully realises that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is detained elsewhere, and all I undertook to do was to take down, as fully as I could, the points which the right hon. Gentleman made. I have no brief on this subject, and I was hoping indeed that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would have been here by this time; but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will not only report to my right hon. Friend the specific points which he made, and which I took down pretty fully, but also the very moderate and fair-minded way in which he raised the matter. I hope that in the special circumstances the right hon. Gentleman and the House will be satisfied with those remarks.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it would not be possible for the Under-Secretary of State or the Prime Minister to make as full and complete a statement as possible on this subject after Questions to-morrow? Nobody who has listened to this story can be unmoved. It is a terrible story, but one thing redeems it, and that is the courage and the devotion of this man to his duty and to his ship. That will stand out as one of the most wonderful stories of sea heroism that has been recorded of late. But that does not get away from the fact that this House and this country ought to have a clear and definite statement of the full facts, and if we cannot get anything more from the Government to-night, I ask that to-morrow, at the end of Questions, the House should have an opportunity of hearing from the Prime Minister himself a statement of the facts and of what the Government intend to do about this.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: May I endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)? Whatever the facts may turn out to be, it does appear that, in the initial stages, the present Spanish Government or their representatives, did


commit a definite breach of international law in arresting this ship. Although one does not wish to discuss this question on a basis of legal technicalities, it is only reasonable to hold those authorities at least morally responsible for what directly followed as a result of that illegal seizure on the high seas. I believe I am right in saying that this is the first clear case since the Spanish civil war began, in which, beyond all doubt, the Spanish insurgent authorities arrested a British ship on the high seas. There have been many cases of doubt whether or not incidents took place within territorial waters, but in this case, apparently, the Government are prepared to admit that the seizure took place on the high seas. May it not therefore be a case in which His Majesty's Government ought to press with all the power of which they are capable, for the payment of adequate compensation to the family of this gallant seaman? I hope that whoever replies for the Government will give the undertaking asked for, that a full statement should be made to the House and the country of all the facts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has admitted that there are certain lacunae in his story. Can we not have the complete story? It must be in the possession of the Government. Let us have it to-morrow and with it, I hope, we shall have an undertaking by the Government that they will do all they can to secure some kind of compensation for the unfortunate people who have been left behind by Captain Richards.

10.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I gladly respond to the invitation which has been extended to the Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow

and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) that they should avail themselves of the earliest opportunity of making as complete a statement as they can, on the incident which has been raised to-night. The only point I would make is this. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would have been in his place to-night, had he not been engaged on public business. It was not a private engagement which kept him from the House but a matter of great importance, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) was made aware earlier.

Mr. Benn: I have explained that.

Captain Margesson: As some hon. Members have come in since the right hon. Gentleman spoke I thought it well to make it clear. In the second place, the House will not expect me to say anything upon this incident on one side or the other. The House has heard the case stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and they will no doubt hear the case, such as it may be, on the other side when the appropriate moment comes. The only other point is this: The right hon. Gentleman said, could not the statement be made to the House to-morrow? It may be that it will be possible to do it to-morrow, but I would not like this evening to pledge my right hon. Friend that he will be in a position to do it actually to-morrow.' I can, however, assure the House that he will take the earliest opportunity of laying before the House the full facts.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Eleven o'Clock